Royal Assent

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
	Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Act 2004
	Christmas Day (Trading) Act 2004
	Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Act 2004
	Medway Council Act 2004
	University of Wales, Cardiff Act 2004

vCJD

Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest, not a pecuniary one, as president of the Haemophilia Society.
	The Question was as follows:
	To ask Her Majesty's Government how many people have already been warned or could eventually be warned by the Department of Health that they may be at risk of developing vCJD as a result of National Health Service treatment.

Lord Warner: My Lords, in England 15 recipients of whole blood were notified in December 2003 of their possible increased risk of variant CJD. For recipients of plasma products, the patient notification exercise started on 21 September, and will run for a few months. Patient records are being examined currently. Until completed, it is not possible to say how many more people will be notified as a result of this exercise.

Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Is he aware just how devastating this deadly further threat has been to the haemophilia community, already mourning 1,000 deaths from HIV and hepatitis C infection by contaminated NHS blood products, and both deeply hurt and offended by the total denial of any financial help for families bereaved by hepatitis C infection?
	We are told nobody is to blame for the disaster. But how can this be validated, except by an independent inquiry and how, without one, shall we ever know whether the risk of vCJD would have been reduced had the safer recombinant treatment been available for all haemophilia patients in 1995? Is there not now a compellingly urgent need for a wide-ranging public inquiry into this worst-ever treatment disaster in the history of the NHS?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I recognise what my noble friend says. This exercise causes further anxiety for a group of people for whom everybody in this House has enormous sympathy. We have undertaken this tracing exercise in full consultation with the Haemophilia Society, to which I pay tribute for all its help. I am afraid that we must accept that there is a great deal of scientific uncertainty about variant CJD and no consensus among experts on assessing the risks to those patients who have received potentially contaminated—I emphasise "potentially"—batches of plasma. The Government have been transparent in their actions and in putting information on variant CJD in the public arena and before Parliament, and we will continue to do so. Wrongful practices have not been employed; we do not believe that a public inquiry is justified.

Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the agent responsible for the transmission of both sporadic and new variant CJD is neither a bacterium nor a virus but an abnormal molecule of protein called a prion? Does he therefore accept that the presumed discovery of transmission of that agent by blood transfusion was both unexpected and alarming? No diagnostic or screening test exists at present, although recently Stanley Prusiner, Nobel prize-winner for his work on prions, suggested that one may be impending. Nevertheless, is it not crucial, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris, has said, that recombinant factor 8 should be made widely available throughout the NHS for all haemophilia sufferers?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his remarks, given his great expertise in this area of medicine and science. It is certainly true that, as yet, there is no blood test for variant CJD, let alone one that could detect the disease years before symptoms develop. We accept the need to make progress on recombinant products but we will do so in an orderly way. I can write to the noble Lord with details of our progress.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, what sort of financial assistance is available in those 1,000 cases to which the noble Lord referred? Obviously, many families will have been devastated by those deaths.

Lord Warner: My Lords, this Question is about variant CJD and a tracing exercise. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, introduced the issue of hepatitis C, which we have debated in this House on several occasions but that is outside the scope of this Question. I will write to the noble Lord with details on hepatitis C and the other issues that he mentioned.

Baroness Neuberger: My Lords, in agreeing that, obviously, considerable distress has been caused to all those who have received the letters, will the Minister now consider whether something particular should be done for the younger people who may be affected? There is growing evidence that younger people are more susceptible to variant CJD than older ones. Growing evidence, particularly from some French scientists, shows that of the cases in the UK a disproportionate number of younger people and teenagers have been affected. Is the Minister prepared to consider specific counselling for younger people among those who have received a letter warning them of the possible risk?

Lord Warner: My Lords, the exercise for tracing people who, I re-emphasise, are potentially at risk of having received possibly contaminated plasma products is being conducted through the Health Protection Agency and, perhaps more significantly, through the 150 clinicians who are treating those with haemophilia and bleeding disorders. They are best placed to advise their patients—they know their patients—on how to respond and to present this information of risk to them. I emphasise that we are talking about products that are potentially contaminated. The 176 batches of plasma products that have been traced are all the result of further dilution of any contaminated blood that has been injected into those batches. It makes risk assessment in this area extraordinarily difficult. There is no consensus among experts on the risk.

Earl Howe: My Lords, the Minister will know that, as part of the Government's precautionary approach, it was decided that all people who have received a blood transfusion since 1980 are banned from giving blood. What official assessment has been made of the effect of that ruling on the number of people now able to donate blood, and is there any threat to blood supplies?

Lord Warner: My Lords, taking a proportion of donors and potential donors out of the supply chain has some impact. But the Government have gone to great lengths to ensure that we have an adequate blood supply. One of the measures that we have been taking, in full consultation with the medical and other health professions, is how we make best use of the blood supply that we have. Over the years, there has been concern that we may have inappropriately used some of our blood supply. We are taking measures with experts to ensure that our available blood supply is used efficiently.

Merchant Shipping Regulations: Consultation

Lord Greenway: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I apologise for the fact that, due to circumstances beyond my control, one line of the Question is missing.
	The full text of the Question was as follows:
	To ask Her Majesty's Government which recreational boating interests were consulted on the amendments to the original draft of the Merchant Shipping (Vessel Traffic Monitoring and Reporting Requirements) Regulations 2004 which extended the regulations to include recreational craft with a length of less than 45 metres.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, after public consultation on the original draft of the Merchant Shipping (Vessel Traffic Monitoring and Reporting Requirements) Regulations 2004, changes had to be made to incorporate provisions on safety and pollution prevention that needed to have effect in order to meet international requirements. The time available for implementing Directive 2002/59/EC was insufficient to permit further consultation with recreational boating interests. In those circumstances, the Government will consider with interested bodies whether changes to the regulations are appropriate.

Lord Greenway: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply and welcome the promise of further consultation, late though it might be.
	Is this not yet another case of the unnecessary gold-plating of EU regulations which, if fully complied with, might well sink the Maritime and Coastguard Agency under a sea of paper? If not complied with, the regulations could make criminals of a large number of the boating public.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, the critical issue is safety. A sequence of maritime law has been drawn together, and the provisions have been faithfully reproduced from that. Safety is important, and too many people have seen accidents, perhaps involving children and others on school trips, to think that it is completely safe not to have a robust system of regulation. No one wants to criminalise anything.

Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, is it not true that by removing the exemption for boats under 45 metres and gold-plating the regulations as no other EU country has done, the Government have made the regulations farcical? Is it not true that yachtsmen must now report immediately any trivial incident? When I say "trivial incident", I am talking about racing yachts touching buoys as they turn or the batteries going flat on people's mobile telephones as they cross the Solent. Anyone in a boat or dinghy capsizing during a race, which is normal, must now report the incident, otherwise they will be treated as a criminal and fined heavily.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, as I said, the regulations draw together a number of existing maritime laws. Under those laws and in the circumstances that the noble Lord has just described so vividly, there have been no prosecutions.
	We will take a common sense approach to the enforcement of the regulations during the period of consultation that I mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, a few moments ago. Although no one can rule out the need for action in the circumstances that I described—a serious hazard to children or a wreck or something discovered by a collision that would normally be reported—I do not think that we need get into a state of panic.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I do not in any way discount the importance of safety, but does not the Minister agree that regulation in Britain, applied to all modes of transport in Britain and to other things, has reached the stage at which people are put to huge expense and, no doubt, the armies of regulators increased? Should there not be a threshold beneath which regulation should not reach?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I do not suppose that anybody would welcome excessive regulation in any area. It always imposes some degree of burden. However, I am sure that all noble Lords will recognise that there is understandable public anxiety about the general safety of transport. When things go wrong, we take sharp notice.
	One could not manage by preventing legislation below a certain level. Small canoes in Poole harbour can kill children. Sensible regulation is a good idea.

Lord Moynihan: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Royal Yachting Association is an excellent example of a governing body looking after a successful, Olympic team, as well as 100,000 recreational sailors? It was an error on the part of his department not to consult the RYA about the amendments to the draft order in the first place.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, the Government are proud of our relationship with the RYA. Although there may be the occasional bit of turbulence, it has been a fairly good relationship. Had there been enough time, it would have been desirable for all the consultations to take place. We faced legal action from the EC as regards making sure that things were done by the correct time. That is why I gave the undertaking today that there would be the consultation that is required.

Abortion

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What action they intend to take following reports that the British Pregnancy Advisory Service had referred women abroad for abortions after the United Kingdom legal limit of 24 weeks.

Lord Warner: My Lords, the Secretary of State for Health has asked the Chief Medical Officer to investigate those reports and to make recommendations. It would be inappropriate for me to comment any further until the investigation has been completed.

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. Is the Minister able to say when the Chief Medical Officer is expected to complete the inquiry so rightly ordered by the Government into the matter? Could he tell the House whether the BPAS is in receipt of any public money, either directly or indirectly, and if so, how much?

Lord Warner: My Lords, on the first point, we certainly do not wish to cramp the Chief Medical Officer's style in carrying out a thorough and independent investigation, but I anticipate that the report will be available before the end of the year. On funding, central government do not give any funding to the BPAS. Funding is provided for services that it provides by individual primary care trusts, but we do not collect that information centrally—after all, we are devolving responsibility within the NHS.

Lord Marsh: My Lords, could the Minister tell the House whether, given that the Government give no money to that organisation, it is suggested in any way—without pre-judging the inquiry—that there could have been a criminal offence?

Lord Warner: My Lords, all I would say is that the law in this area, as I discovered when I was being briefed for the Question, is extremely complex and is not a matter on which I would want to venture an opinion at this time. That will be covered by the Chief Medical Officer's investigation, and I would hope that he will be able to clarify matters in terms of the law in an extremely complicated area. I do not want to comment further on this aspect at this time.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if an abortion must be performed, it should be performed as early as possible? Is he aware of the concern of the All-Party Group on Pro-choice and Sexual Health that the standard three-week waiting time should be reduced to one week? In the light of that, are the Government considering the proposals of the Family Planning Association that the second doctor's signature may be unnecessary in future, and that abortions could take place in community settings, such as family planning clinics and GP clinics, and done by specially trained nurses, where that abortion is early and uncomplicated?

Lord Warner: My Lords, we are aware of those various proposals for change. We certainly agree that where women are legally entitled to an abortion, they should have access to the procedure as soon as possible. The evidence shows that the risk of complications increases the later in gestation.
	As a government, we have invested £6 million to improve early access to abortion services and have set a standard of a maximum waiting time of three weeks. In addition, primary care trust performance in this area is being measured as part of NHS performance assessments. At this stage, I would not want to comment further on possible changes in the law. The Government certainly have no plans to change the law in this area.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, can the Minister give an assurance to the House that the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, will be conveyed to the people doing the study? Can we have an answer on that? It is a most interesting point.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I am sure that the Chief Medical Officer is an assiduous reader of your Lordships' debates in this area. But I shall certainly draw this debate to his attention.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what the change has been in the number of abortions year on year over the past 10 years? In particular, how many have been early abortions? That follows on from the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I do not have the 10-year figures in my head or my brief. The total number of abortions in 2002 was just over 180,000. We know that on the latest abortion figures 87 per cent were carried out at under-13 weeks and less than 1 per cent were performed at 22 weeks and over.

Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord's answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, implied that the only concern that the Government have about the dangers of increasing the age at which abortion might be carried out is the danger of complications. There was no mention of the danger of the sensitivity of the foetus. I hope that the noble Lord will assure your Lordships that that is also in the Government's mind.
	As I am on my feet and allowed two shots, where might my noble friend Lady Knight get the figures from the trusts that the Minister is unable to provide centrally?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I think that noble Lords will find on the Department of Health website the names of the 303 primary care trusts. I leave it to noble Lords to make their own inquiries in that area. There was no implication in my reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, at all. We have to look after the health of women who are legally entitled to an abortion.

Civil Contingencies Reaction Force

Lord Garden: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the current operating capability of the Civil Contingencies Reaction Force (CCRF); and what assessment they have made of the effect of current deployments of reserve forces to overseas theatres on CCRF units.

Lord Bach: My Lords, the Civil Contingencies Reaction Force (CCRF) achieved full operating capability on 31 December 2003. That means that 14 CCRFs, each able to draw on a pool of around 500 volunteer reserve personnel, are available across the UK to provide assistance to the civil authorities should they need it. The deployment of individual reservists on operations overseas does not affect the overall ability of CCRFs to respond to a request for assistance.

Lord Garden: My Lords, I am delighted by the Answer that the Minister has given. As the one dedicated force that the Ministry of Defence is providing for civil contingencies, it is important that it is at full operating capability. Is there a full programme of no-notice exercises where the equipment, readiness and, perhaps most of all, training qualifications of those reservists can be checked on a regular basis?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I do not always agree with the noble Lord on a number of defence issues. But I pay tribute to his expertise on the Armed Forces in relation to the civil authorities, which I know has been a great concern of his for many years, even when he was in the Ministry of Defence.
	Yes, many CCRF training exercises take place. It is important to remember that the role of CCRFs is to enhance other military support that may be necessary. CCRFs are not front line in the sense that the bomb disposal squad might be front line in order to help the civil authorities. However, they are involved in a range of exercises with the civil authorities, which provide the essential training that I think he is talking about for members of the CCRFs and help to develop a common awareness and understanding of the capabilities of the force.

Lord Truscott: My Lords, can the Minister elaborate on the role and purpose of the CCRFs and whether, in his view, they have sufficient operating capability?

Lord Bach: My Lords, that is a very good question. It is some time since we have discussed these matters. Perhaps I may remind the House that the CCRFs were formed as a result of the SDR New Chapter. As I said a moment ago, they are designed to enhance the Armed Forces' ability to support the civil police and other authorities in the regions by drawing on the undoubted skills of the Armed Forces reserves. There are 14 CCRFs available across the UK to assist during emergencies—whether the result of a terrorist attack, an accident or a natural emergency.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister's Answer to my noble friend mean that as and when personnel from the CCRFs are deployed overseas, other recruits are taken on to make up the numbers to the original 500?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord should be too stuck on the figure of 500. That is a round figure used for each region. We have had absolutely no difficulty in ensuring that there are sufficient volunteers for the CCRF in each of the regions at the present time.

Lord Boyce: My Lords, in that case, what is the minimum viable number for a CCRF unit, given that, first, our reservists are being used on operations away from the country and, secondly, the weariness that is now entering our reservists as they get called forward more often will make them disinclined to remain in the reserves?

Lord Bach: My Lords, a figure around 500 is the appropriate figure. If there was ever a shortage in a particular region it would be quite possible for volunteers from another region to make up that number. I bear very much in mind what the noble and gallant Lord says about the role that reserves have played overseas. Currently, there are some 1,200 in Iraq. We know that there have been many more until now.
	Once again, on behalf of the whole House, perhaps I may take this opportunity to praise and thank the reserves for the incredibly important work that they do.

Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has put his finger on a more important point than the number 500 suggests. I imagine that the volunteers in those units are recruited for specialist skills and that a considerable spectrum of specialist skills is required. The number of particular skills available in any particular unit may be relatively small. Can the Minister give any illustration?

Lord Bach: My Lords, in fact, the volunteers are not appointed for specialist skills. As I tried to say earlier, the specialist skill would be provided by the Armed Forces called in to deal, for example, with a bomb disposal or activity of that kind. I remind the House that CCRFs are on 24-hours' notice, so they will not be called in immediately something happens but within 24 hours. The general duties that the CCRFs might undertake are reconnaissance, management of displaced persons, giving limited first aid, providing temporary accommodation management, manning water and feeding points and access control. Those are the sort of vital but general roles that are intended for CCRFs.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we are all conscious of the role that the reserves are now playing in Iraq and of the role that many reservists played in Bosnia and other parts of the former Yugoslavia. Given the scale of use of the reserves in those operations in recent years and the double-hatting that the Minister has been talking about in terms of the number of potential roles that they have, do the Government intend revisiting the size of the reserves, which have been cut back on several occasions during the past 15 years? In view of the question asked by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, do they also want to revisit the scale of incentives to become and remain part of the reserves?

Lord Bach: My Lords, we are always looking at the number of reserves and at their terms and conditions. I remind the noble Lord of the figure I mentioned earlier—approximately 1,200 reserves are currently serving in Iraq, along with others stationed abroad. That can be compared with the current strength of the Territorial Army, which stands at 33,000 at the present time.

Lord Garden: My Lords, I was delighted with the Minister's original Answer, but I have become more confused as I listened to his successive responses. He has talked about "around" 500 in each unit. When I was in the Ministry of Defence I remember that we used to talk of "around" 50 frigates, meaning 37 at the time. The White Paper published in December 2003 was very specific on numbers. The real question is: do we have, in every region, 100 per cent of the people needed to do this job?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am interested to hear what happened when the noble Lord served in the Ministry of Defence. He will not be surprised to hear me say that that does not happen now, or at least not all the time. However, I can give him the assurance that he seeks.

Business of the House: Debate this Day

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The debate to which this Motion relates began its life as an Unstarred Question for the lunch break. It attracted so many speakers that Back-Benchers would have been restricted to just two minutes each. As it happened, the usual channels realised yesterday that the Hunting Bill might finish early. They therefore agreed, as a complete one-off, to turn the Question into a Motion to be taken after the Bill with a two and a half hour time limit. If agreed to, this will give Back-Benchers eight minutes each. I hope the House will feel that, for once, the usual channels have got it right.
	Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Baroness Gale set down for today shall be limited to two and a half hours.—(Baroness Amos.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Hunting Bill

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Whitty.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
	Schedule 1 [Exempt Hunting]:

Earl Peel: moved Amendment No. 60:
	Page 6, line 36, leave out "two" and insert "four"

Earl Peel: The purpose of this string of amendments tabled in my name is to try to establish the degree of impracticality that at any rate appears to exist in Schedule 1. As I have already said, regardless of the principle of whether hunting with hounds should continue, the Bill appears to pose some genuine difficulties to many involved in countryside management, including shooting. Here I declare an interest as someone who not only participates in the sport, but also owns and manages a shoot.
	At this early stage I should like to remind the Committee that the Minister, the right honourable Alun Michael, has made a clear commitment that it is not the Government's intention to impose restrictions on the sports of shooting and fishing. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, confirmed that in reply to a question of mine and my noble friend Lord Denham at Second Reading. Given the position, I hope that the Minister will be genuinely forthcoming in his response to my amendment by giving the Committee a clear indication of what the implications would be if Schedule 1 is enacted without amendment.
	I shall speak first to Amendments Nos. 60, 61 and 62, and then deal with Amendments Nos. 71 to 75. Amendment Nos. 60 to 62 deal with the provision for what is described as "exempt hunting". As the Bill stands, anyone involved in activities described as the "stalking" and "flushing out" of a wild mammal would be committing an offence, as it would be deemed to be hunting, unless he has no more than two dogs. I would suggest that this is likely to cause great difficulties, in particular for those involved in shooting.
	Gamekeepers, beaters and those responsible for picking up and gathering in the game as quickly as possible often have more than two dogs. Schedule 1 as it stands would seriously compromise their activities. Let us suppose that there were 20 beaters for a shoot, each of whom had one dog. That would be 20 dogs, which is more than two. Would that constitute "hunting" under the terms of the Bill?
	Furthermore—this is a very important question which was alluded to by my noble friend Lord Eden of Winton on Tuesday when we were discussing whether Clause 2 should stand part—there seems to be another extraordinary anomaly in the stalking and flushing out provisions of Schedule 1 in that if an individual did raise a mammal in those circumstances, such as a hare, fox or deer, according to paragraph 1(7)(a) it would have to be,
	"shot dead by a competent person".
	So we find ourselves in the extraordinary situation where if someone out on a shoot as a beater, picker-up or gamekeeper flushed out a mammal that was not allowed to be hunted, he would have to carry a gun and shoot it whether he wanted to or not. That strikes me as very odd. I thought that, on a shooting day one at least had the choice whether to shoot the mammal, but according to Schedule 1 one would have to do so. Aside from anything else, that would be highly dangerous. If a deer got up and one had only a shotgun, would one really have to shoot it with that gun? I cannot believe that that is right. But if it is the case, then clearly the Government will have to reconsider the whole paragraph.
	Amendments Nos. 60 to 62 attempt to increase the number of dogs to something more realistic. However, I am bound to say that this is not the way to deal with the problem. The real way to address it is on the basis of purpose and intention. I hope that the Government can approach this in a more pragmatic and helpful way.
	I turn to Amendments Nos. 71 to 74. Here I simply employ the same argument against why exempt hunting should be restricted to two dogs when dealing with rescuing a wild mammal under paragraph 8. However, strictly speaking Amendment No. 75 should have been grouped with the next set of amendments, and I appreciate that this is a little complicated. That amendment would remove the restriction of not being allowed to use a dog underground to control a mammal which was protected from hunting for the purposes of rescue.
	That last point is rather strange. Paragraph 8(3) states that the second condition to make hunting exempt for the purposes of rescue is that,
	"the hunting is undertaken for the purpose of relieving the wild mammal's suffering".
	The obvious case here is where a vixen with cubs underground has been shot. Surely, under such circumstances, it would be appropriate, indeed essential, that a dog be used underground to dispose of the orphaned cubs.
	Let me quote Professor MacDonald, who was commissioned by the Burns inquiry to look at population management and control of quarry species. He stated:
	"Even if a rifle is used to kill adult foxes at the earth, there is a case to be made on welfare grounds that terriers should be used subsequently to ensure that cubs are not left without parental care".
	My noble friend Lord Soulsby has tabled an amendment which has similar intentions and I look forward with great interest to what my noble friend, who has far more experience in these matters than I do, has to say.
	It is perhaps worth noting also that the specific provision for dealing with orphan cubs using a dog below ground is covered in the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002. I hope that the Government will appreciate the real need to rethink this clause and acknowledge the overriding need for a more acceptable and pragmatic solution.
	Amendments Nos. 78, 79 and 80 involve the same arguments as to why the number of dogs used for exempt hunting activities should be restricted to two. In this case I refer to paragraph 9, which covers research and observation. I beg to move.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Before the Minister replies, will he bear in mind that some people may not be shooters but merely dog owners exercising their dogs, and that they may have more than two dogs? Those dogs may spot some wild mammal and go after it.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I make a couple of points in support of the amendments. There is a great deal of confusion in the Bill as it stands and I am very pleased that the noble Earl, Lord Peel, has brought the amendments forward.
	There is no doubt, certainly in my experience, that shooting, if well organised, involves a degree of control which ensures that the whole exercise is conducted properly and that injured animals, for example, are taken care of. Amendments Nos. 60 to 80, excluding Amendments Nos. 63 and 64, ensure, for example, that many of the day-to-day management actions taken by gamekeepers for the owners or the family members of owners are covered.
	In particular, on a shoot—and I have not been shooting for at least a decade—it is normal to have at least half-a-dozen people shooting, and sometimes many more. It is also traditional to bring your dog with you, although you can keep it in the car to ensure that not too many dogs are used. But frequently, if a mammal or a bird is injured, certainly more than two dogs are involved in searching for that quarry and bringing it back. It is a complex situation.
	The amendments are common sense. They give flexibility in shooting to ensure that there is not as much suffering as would otherwise be the case if shot birds or other mammals could not be found. As to terrier work and the issue of cubs underground, we have to ask ourselves whether or not we want the cubs to starve to death. It is a simple question. These are constructive amendments which would ensure that such matters are conducted in a civilised way.

Baroness Byford: I support my noble friend's sensible amendments. They highlight the practical difficulties that we have in debating the Bill, which we know the Minister certainly does not wish to alter very much.
	I hope that the Minister will reply in relation to the desirability of what my noble friend is seeking to achieve in regard to the practicalities of larger shoots and the way in which they are organised. If another place decides to take a contrary view and does not accept the amended Bill that we are likely to send back to it—especially in regard to registration—can the Minister say whether these kinds of amendments could not be included because of the use of the Parliament Act?
	This highlights the nonsense with which we have been faced over the past three days. We are trying to improve the Bill and to come to some kind of compromise; as yet, there has been no compromise at all. I hope that the Minister will respond to both questions.

Lord Hoyle: Before my noble friend replies, I must take issue as to whether there has been compromise or an improvement of the Bill. It appears to me that many things have been added to the original Bill which will not be acceptable to the House of Commons.
	I believe that if more than two dogs are used, more rather than less cruelty could arise. Whether or not this is a compromise, there is a danger that the real intent is to bring into the Bill the Scottish situation, where packs of dogs chase an animal into a wood or elsewhere, and then the animal is shot. This would ensure that hunting continues and I wonder whether that is the intent behind these amendments.

Lord Swinfen: Is the use of two dogs confined to one individual person, or are two dogs to be used among a group of people? I ask the question because the last time I went shooting there were some 20 of us and at least 20 dogs were out. Some people had one dog and those who did not have a dog were made up with those who had two dogs with them. Is it to be two dogs per individual or two dogs per shoot?

Lord Mancroft: I support my noble friend's amendments. Can the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, explain why using three or four dogs would be crueller than using two? I cannot see that using two dogs to pick up game is cruel, nor can I see that using four dogs is. I simply do not understand what the noble Lord means.

Lord Hoyle: The question is why two dogs are not sufficient. I think that the use of more dogs could cause unnecessary suffering. That is the point I am making. Amendment No. 71 seeks to make it an unlimited number of dogs.

Lord Mancroft: That is most helpful. However, in answer to his point, if two dogs were used on a big shoot all day, they would be two very, very tired dogs. You need to use a number of dogs to cover the ground. There is a limit to the amount of ground two poor dogs by themselves can cover. Whether there are two, three, four or five dogs, the cruelty issue does not arise; it is a complete irrelevance.
	One of the issues on which my noble friend has put his finger is that there has never been an explanation of why these numbers were suddenly plucked out of the air. I understand that the purpose of the Bill is to ban hunting which takes place with a pack. Fine. But, putting that aside—let us assume that that is what the Bill seeks to do—these amendments have nothing to do with that. Schedule 1, "Exempt Hunting", on which these amendments are focused, relates to other activities.
	I suppose that the Bill has been drafted and drawn up in such a way as to prevent loopholes which would allow people to carry out the activity of illegal hunting while pretending that they were shooting, flushing, stalking and so on.
	My noble friend has pointed out that, in the attempt to focus narrowly this part of the schedule to ensure that there are no loopholes, the Bill makes virtually impossible the activities that the Government have committed not to injure, as well as related activities. The number of dogs is completely irrelevant to hunting issues in shooting, so the provision is meaningless.
	My noble friend also drew the Committee's attention to paragraph 1(7)(a) on page 7 of the Bill, and the issue of having to shoot a mammal once one has flushed it. The mammal has to be,
	"shot dead by a competent person",
	but there is no definition of a "competent person". One would hope that it would be shot dead, not shot wounded, but apparently it might be wrong if one cannot actually shoot it dead.
	My noble friend has drawn attention to the point about carrying the appropriate firearm. Three different sorts of firearm would be required, depending on whether the mammal was a hare, deer or fox. That would be particularly relevant if the purpose for which one was going out was to shoot birds, and one's dog then put up a hare, deer or fox. Especially with a deer or a fox, it is most unlikely that anyone in the area is carrying the appropriate firearm—so it is virtually impossible to do.
	There is another factor, which is the time of year at which the shoot is happening. One may well be out at the time of year when the deer that one puts up is out of season, as defined in the deer Acts. One then has a wonderful choice under this legislation: one either breaks the law under the Hunting Bill or under the deer Acts. One cannot obey both laws.
	These are not issues of principle; this is just sloppy, second-rate legislation. The reason why we have a political process whereby Bills go through a Committee and Report stage in both Houses is to clean such things up. Unfortunately, the Government have chosen to take the Bill through another place with the tightest guillotine of which I have ever heard and restricted debate on it last year in your Lordships' House—we never got this far. Now that we are having a full Committee stage, and we are getting towards the end of it, we are discovering parts of the Bill which, whether one agrees with the principle of the Bill or not, are so badly written and drawn up that they probably do not achieve their object and certainly cause collateral harm elsewhere.
	Now, because we are apparently in Parliament Act territory, it will be very difficult to correct these mistakes—which occur in all legislation, which is why we are a revising Chamber. The problem therefore is, as a result of where the Government have taken us on this matter, if the other place rejects what we send back and if we find ourselves back with what is colloquially known as "the Banks Bill", it will end up on the statute book in a state which no Bill should ever be in. My noble friend does the Committee a service by drawing its attention in these amendments to that situation.

Lord Palmer: I must just correct the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, who said that in Scotland, dogs—or whatever they are—chase wild mammals into the woods. That is against the law in Scotland. Hounds are employed to chase a fox out of the wood, where it is, one hopes, despatched by marksmen at the end of the wood. That is a very important point to put on record.

Lord Monro of Langholm: My noble friend Lord Mancroft put the case clearly of there being anomalies in the Bill. In the beginning of the speech made by my noble friend Lord Peel, he said that the provisions were another addition to the anti-shooting policy of this Government. When the Minister responds, will he put on record exactly the Government's policy on shooting? Anyone can see when reading the Bill that, if all these anomalies remain in the Bill, it makes normal shooting virtually impossible. Besides that, we have endless difficulties with the issue of firearms. The police are encouraged to be as difficult as possible, and younger shooters are handicapped because they are not allowed to go out alone. In every way, the Government are on quite infirm ground in their opposition to shooting. We anticipate that they will be against angling, too, when that matter rises in some year to come.
	Will the Minister reply to the debate and remove the anomalies? It seems incredible that they are there, with all the consultations that this Government have had, year in and year out, when members of BASC, the Game Conservancy Trust or the Countryside Alliance could have told any Minister that they had got this hopelessly wrong. Let us have a real, honest reply from the Minister today—he should say that he realises that the drafting and the policy behind it is wrong, and that he has to put it right.

Lord Willoughby de Broke: I support my noble friend's amendments. I wish to take a little further a point made by my noble friend Lord Mancroft about paragraph 1(7)(a) of Schedule 1, which says that reasonable steps should be taken,
	"for the purpose of ensuring that as soon as possible after being found or flushed out the wild mammal is shot dead by a competent person".
	This all comes back to shooting, of course. I do not shoot very often, except on my own farm, as I am a very poor shot. But on several shoots—and on my own farm—we do not shoot ground game. That is one of the rules given at the beginning of a shoot: do not shoot hares or rabbits. How does that instruction fit in with paragraph 1(7)(a)? Is that instruction inciting people to break the instructions elsewhere in the schedule? The provision says that if wild mammals such as a hare or deer are flushed out, one is not allowed to shoot it—but it says in that paragraph that one must shoot it. Is there not some anomaly there? Perhaps the Minister could deal with that when he comes to reply.

Lord Swinfen: Would my noble friend agree with me that such an instruction is often given for reasons of safety of the beaters? Therefore, to comply with the law might put some beaters in danger on some ground where it is very difficult sometimes to see the beaters coming towards the guns.

Lord Whitty: In response to the noble Lord, Lord Monro, and to the first point that the noble Earl made, this is not a Bill to restrict shooting, nor have the Government any intention of introducing a Bill to do so. This is a Bill to restrict hunting with dogs. The import of all these amendments would be to increase the number of dogs involved in hunting activities. It is therefore unlikely that those who wanted either the original government Bill or the Bill which was originally before this Chamber would be amenable to wholesale increases in the number of dogs allowed under these provisions.
	It might have been possible, had there been a general atmosphere of negotiation and compromise, for some of these practical things to be talked through. However, regrettably, we are not in that situation. I have said this to the Chamber too many times, but I shall say it again—that it only adds to the difficulty of the likely response from Members in another place that we have already not simply reverted to the so-called "Alun Michael Bill", because we have already deleted the prohibitions on stag hunting and hare coursing, extended beyond reason the utility test and diluted the suffering test. Now, if the amendments are passed, we shall increase the number of dogs allowed in these exempt activities. That does not represent a package in the spirit of compromise.
	Therefore, while I note some of the arguments, I do not believe that it is sensible to increase the number of dogs provided for in the exemptions. Of course, under the Bill that is now before the Committee, which includes registration, there would be certain circumstances in which a larger number of dogs would go through the registration process. But that is a different issue—these are exempt activities.
	As to whether the provision limits the number of dogs per person or number per operation, it refers to the number of dogs involved in chasing a mammal. If it is four people with two dogs, one person with two dogs or 20 people with two dogs, that is fine. If there are more than two dogs but they are chasing several mammals, that may also be fine, depending on the arithmetic. The question is whether more than two dogs are being set on to one animal. That is the test—not the number of people compared to the number of dogs.

Earl Peel: I refer to a situation on a shoot day where there are, say, 30 dogs. A mammal gets off to the right, pursued by two dogs; a mammal gets off to the middle pursued by four; and a mammal gets off to the left pursued by one. In the first case an offence is not committed, in the second case it is and in the third case it is. Who will make the assessment? Who will do the counting? How will prosecutions take place?

Lord Whitty: The answer to that is that those who wish to obey the law will not have broken it. Regrettably, there is always the theme running through these debates that those who are described as law-abiding people will wish to break the law. If people observe the restrictions, as they are supposed to observe the voluntary restrictions that exist at the moment, they will not break the law.

Lord Crickhowell: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. The noble Lord suggested to the Committee that the reason we cannot make sense of a Bill that is at present nonsense is that there has not been a readiness to compromise. Actually, we are in this position because of a pre-determined insistence that the Parliament Act will be pursued. We shall finish with a totally unworkable Act. I have one specific question that I should like the Minister to answer. The police will have great difficulty even in dealing with hunting, but in that case they can identify people with horses. Are the police now expected to attend every shoot in the country to ensure that the law is enforced when anyone goes out shooting?

Lord Whitty: As in all instances the police act on information received or perceived breaches of the law. Clearly, no more than they follow people around who might commit some other criminal offence, will they on the off chance follow people around the countryside to see whether they have more than two dogs. However, were a complaint to be made, the police would investigate it, as would be their duty if this Bill is passed.
	The offence of having more than two dogs involved in these activities—as my noble friend Lord Hoyle pointed out—results from the new law in Scotland whereby, in effect, there is not a limit on dogs and therefore by default a pack of hounds develops and we are back into a situation where something like the hunting which was intended to be restricted or made illegal takes place. It was for those reasons that these restrictions on the number of dogs involved in these activities were put in place.
	Other issues arise under the amendments apart from the limit on numbers. Amendment No. 64 would amend the gamekeeper provision in paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 in relation to terriers, which are exempt for the prevention of damage to game birds as the Bill stands. The amendment would extend the measure to livestock.

Lord Mancroft: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I think that he has inadvertently slipped into the next group of amendments.

Lord Whitty: I believe that Amendment No. 64 is included in the relevant grouping.

Earl Peel: The grouping has been changed.

Lord Whitty: I am sadly misled. Amendment No. 64 must have been included in the relevant grouping at some point but it no longer is, in which case I shall reserve my remarks on it until I receive clarification myself.

Earl Peel: It is evident that the Minister listened closely to what I had to say.

Lord Whitty: As ever. Two other points were raised. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, mentioned someone taking a dog for a walk that happened to chase an animal. It has been clear throughout that the issue of hunting is dealt with in regard to intent. In no way would a little old lady walking on the common whose animals happened to run after a stray fox or anything else be subject to this law. In principle the same applies to the issue raised, I believe, by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, about people who inadvertently flush out ground game while trying to shoot birds.

Lord Mancroft: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Like the Minister, I, too, was listening very carefully. He said in answer to the question raised by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, that the offence was committed by a person with intent. Can he show me where in the Bill the issue of intent arises? It appears to me that a person commits an offence if he hunts a wild mammal, not if he intends to do so. However, if he does not intend to do so, but the dog is doing the hunting, clearly he has not committed an offence, has he? I cannot see intent in that.

Lord Whitty: Throughout these debates—I am sure that the noble Lord will have studied the proceedings—the issue of intent is implied, as it is in other legislation. That applies here, as the courts would take it to apply in a whole range of legislative situations. Neither the person taking their dog for a walk nor the flushing out of animals which were not the object of the hunt would be construed as intent, which is the point that I am making, and therefore would not fall foul of these restrictions.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I should like to try to assist the Minister because we could go on for a very long time challenging, perhaps unnecessarily, some of the points that have been made. Is it not the case that the way in which the measure has been drafted impinges upon shooting; in fact it was referred to as collateral damage to shooting? Surely the simple way to tackle this is to define more closely on Report what is meant by hunting in this context, perhaps relating it to a pack or something of that kind, leaving the issue of shooting to continue in its traditional way, which certainly is not what I would describe as a method of hunting—it is a case of dogs assisting a shoot. I should have thought that some definition on Report might save a lot of time and effort and speeches which perhaps have been provoked by some rather sloppy legislation.

Lord Whitty: No doubt the noble Lord can concoct all kinds of things for Report but I do not think it is necessary. Time and again the Government have said that the measure is not intended to restrict lawful shooting. Indeed, the Title of the Bill states that it is to:
	"Make provision about hunting wild mammals with dogs".
	It is not intended to restrict lawful shooting. However, a problem arises when packs of dogs chase an animal which is then shot, and that situation turns in effect into a hunt. I refer in that regard to the point made about the Scottish legislation by my noble friend Lord Hoyle. That is why we have to place restrictions on these exemptions.
	Both for practical reasons and because it would be seen as yet another step way beyond the Alun Michael Bill, I advise the Committee not to pursue these amendments. However, it is, as ever, a free vote.

Earl Peel: Before the noble Lord sits down, will he be kind enough to answer the questions that I posed to him under Amendment No. 75, I think it was, which is concerned with the use of a dog underground for the killing of cubs from a vixen that may have been shot?

Lord Whitty: As the noble Earl himself said, this issue arises substantively in a later group of amendments, most of which are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby. If the noble Earl does not mind, I shall respond to the matter at that point.

Lord Willoughby de Broke: Before the Minister sits down, he was in the process of answering the query raised by my noble friend and myself about whether someone who was instructed not to shoot ground game, hares or deer at a shoot would be acting consistently with Schedule 1. The Minister was answering that question when he was diverted. Will he reply to that question, at least?

Lord Whitty: The noble Lord is right. I was diverted but I thought that I had returned to the matter. The issue of intent is relevant here. Clearly, where the instruction not to shoot ground game is obeyed, but inadvertently ground game are flushed out, the person involved would not be under the relevant obligation because there is no intent. There is no intent to hunt the ground game and therefore the requirement to shoot as rapidly as possible would not apply to the game that were not the quarry.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Will the Minister reflect—if not today, then before Report—on the way in which he responded to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Peel about the policing of the methods? He will remember the entirely realistic scenario that my noble friend painted of dogs pursuing mammals in the course of a shoot. Will the Minister reflect on the field day of opportunity that the schedule would give for private prosecutions brought by "antis" who did not pay much attention to the fact that the Government did not wish it to operate against the interests of shooting?

Lord Whitty: I shall reflect on it, but I do not see that it makes any difference, as it is not the intention to provide means of restricting lawful shooting, whether by private prosecution or not. However, I shall consider the point further, and we may return to it on Report.

Viscount Ullswater: I want to put a practical point to the Minister. If the law comes in for a total ban, the shooting of hares will be an exempt hunting operation. There is an intent to shoot the hares; they are often driven in. In my part of the world—Norfolk—we often have large hare shoots in February, where perhaps hundreds of hares are killed on one day on one farm because of the number that need to be controlled. Therefore, hare shooting is now classified as exempt hunting, as it is:
	"Stalking a wild mammal, or flushing it out of cover".
	There may not be cover on the rather bare fields in February, but I guess that it is still included. When that takes place, the beaters usually have dogs, very much under control and probably on leads, which would satisfy paragraph 1(7)(b), but they would commit an offence if there were more than two dogs in the line of beaters.
	The anomaly in the Bill is that, once the whistle blows for the end of the drive, paragraph 1(5) seemingly contains no restriction on the number of dogs that may be used for the retrieval of hares. It seems extraordinary that, for driving the hares, only two dogs could be available on that field or in that area, but, when the exempt hunting finishes, any number of dogs are available to undertake retrieval of hares.

Lord Whitty: Without wishing to aggravate the conflict more than I need do, the hunting of hares was also banned in the Bill that came from the House of Commons, so the situation that the noble Viscount described would not have been legal under it. Hypothetically, I think that he is right—unless I am informed otherwise, which I am not—but if one has restricted the number of dogs for the chase it is unlikely that a large number will materialise at the point when retrieval is required. I suppose that it is theoretically possible, but the whole point is to restrict hunting with hounds, so it is at that point that the restriction clicks in.

Earl Peel: I want to refer to the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, that the amendment was some form of hidden agenda to try to push the English hunting situation into one similar to Scotland. I tried to make it clear when I moved the amendment that I spoke from a shooting perspective. I assure him that I have no intention whatever of trying to introduce any hidden agenda on hunting. All that I am trying to do is explain to the Committee that Schedule 1 is complete and utter nonsense.
	I cannot believe that the Minister thinks that the answers that he attempted to give us made any real practical sense whatever. It is a shambles. Since I have been in this House, I have always been told that the essence of good law is law that is enforceable. As my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew said, the provisions will lead to private prosecutions. They will be much more likely than anything done by the police because, frankly, it will be impractical for the police to take action if offences occur.
	I like to think that my dogs are fairly well under control but, from time to time, they will pursue a hare—they will pursue a mammal protected from hunting under the Bill. I am sorry, but that is a fact of life. The thought that I could be criminalised for such an action makes me very angry. I suggest that the Government think twice before introducing this utter nonsense. As my noble friend Lord Mancroft said, the Bill has never been properly scrutinised. This is the first opportunity that Parliament has had to do so, and we have driven a coach and horses through it, to use the Minister's expression.
	I hope, perhaps beyond hope, that the Minister and his right honourable friend Alun Michael will seriously reconsider this nonsense, and that we can at least have a workable and enforceable Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 not moved.]

Earl Peel: moved Amendment No. 63:
	Page 7, line 13, after "to" insert "—
	(a) "

Earl Peel: Amendments Nos. 63 and 64 deal with the exemption under the Bill for a gamekeeper to use a dog below ground for flushing out a mammal, most likely a fox,
	"for the purpose of preventing or reducing serious damage to game birds or wild birds . . . which a person is keeping or preserving for the purpose of their being shot".
	I am bound to say that I welcome that important concession to gamekeepers, but I simply cannot see the logic in disallowing such an activity for the protection of livestock or birds that will not be shot.
	As every countryman and farmer knows, foxes are major predators of poultry and livestock. On Tuesday, I quoted to the Committee the National Farmers Union of Wales on the fact that lamb predation by foxes increased up to six times when hunting was prohibited during the foot and mouth epidemic. If hunting were to be prohibited, the requirement to deal with a fox underground would become even more essential. It may be worth reminding the Committee that failure to control pests can lead to a notice being served by Defra under Sections 98 and 99 of the Agriculture Act 1947. Amendment No. 63 deals specifically with the question of livestock.
	Amendment No. 64 deals with a further anomaly by which birds that may be shot are given the extra protection of the use of a dog below ground to control foxes, but a bird that does not fall within that category fails to qualify for such protection. Again, that baffles me completely. Predation by foxes and stoats on ground-nesting birds can be phenomenal. In the uplands, for example, there are now virtually no ground-nesting birds on any areas not managed for game shooting. A recent survey conducted by Andy Tharme, on behalf of the RSPB and the Game Conservancy Trust, of which I have the honour to be president, found that moorland managed for grouse shooting had up to five times more wader birds—I am referring to golden plover, curlew and the green plover—than those that were not managed in a similar way.
	It seems bizarre that the protection of those species should be subordinate to game birds. I suggest that that requires careful reconsideration. I beg to move.

Baroness Mallalieu: One of the main services that my local hunt on Exmoor provides to farmers has nothing to do with people on horses or people having pleasure. Every morning at dawn during the lambing season, at the request of the farmer the huntsman goes with a small number of hounds to lambing fields where damage has been caused and lambs killed. He tracks the fox that is responsible back to its earth, where it is dispatched with the use of terriers. That is a practical and essential service in almost every sheep area in this country. It is not what people think of as the job of a huntsman, but it is perhaps one of his most important tasks. That essential service will not be possible as the Bill is presently drafted. It is a total nonsense and another illustration of how the lack of any proper scrutiny of the Bill has led to glaring omissions in the drafting.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I spoke previously about the situation regarding the problems faced by monoculture in woodland in Wales. It is common practice to organise fox shoots with a number of dogs and often the foxes go to ground. The exclusion of the ability of terriers to go down and dispatch the foxes is a serious hole in this legislation and will cause exceptional problems for the control of foxes in the lambing season, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, has stated.

Lord Whitty: This exemption on terrier work was inserted in another place on Report as an exemption for gamekeepers to provide for some use of terrier work for the protection of game birds and to allow a single dog to be used below ground for that purpose. The two amendments in the group would greatly extend that exemption.
	I understand the noble Earl's point relating to birds other than game birds, but it is a significant extension. The exemption relating to livestock is a huge exemption. Presumably one could argue that allowing terrier work on any moorland that contained sheep, however sparsely inhabited, would be in connection with the protection of that livestock. That is a wide exemption. Noble Lords will understand that terrier work gives rise to some of the greatest animal welfare concerns and some of the cruellest practices. It is, therefore the intention of the House of Commons in putting the exemption in such terms to allow it only in limited circumstances. Both amendments substantially extend those limited circumstances beyond the intent of the Bill.

Baroness Mallalieu: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. Can he tell us the justification for providing an exemption for gamekeepers but not for shepherds?

Lord Whitty: Our argument has been about using hounds for chasing foxes. That is what we are trying to ban or restrict, subject to a registration system. We are not trying to prevent shooting and, therefore, we do not wish to make a gamekeeper's life more difficult. That is why the exemption was given. Any wider exemption would take us into the wider field of hunting with hounds. I know that my noble friend does not accept that basic premise, but, nevertheless, the logic of the basic premise still applies. We are dealing with hunting with hounds, not with shooting. That is why the exemption is so limited.

Earl Peel: I am not suggesting for one moment that we put a hound underground. We are talking about putting a terrier underground. The terrier would bolt the fox and the fox would then be shot.

Lord Whitty: I accept that qualification in a sense, but we are not distinguishing this matter by breed of dog. It is the intention of this Bill to ban or restrict hunting with dogs in all respects. There is a distinction between trying to restrict that activity and trying to restrict an activity which is in pursuit of game shooting.

Lord Denham: Does the noble Lord realise that foxes kill lambs? Is a lamb less important than a game bird?

Lord Whitty: The Bill is about hunting with dogs. Can I get it into people's heads that the distinction here is the activity, not between a lamb and a bird? We are talking about restricting hunting with dogs in various ways. We do not want any inadvertent effect on other country sports or activities. That is the only reason that the exemption is being given. Otherwise, the purpose of the Bill is to limit the hunting of mammals with hounds—with dogs. The noble Lord may not like it. Clearly, a large number of Members of this House do not like it, but it is a logical position to say that exemptions which prevent collateral damage to other activities should be allowed but exemptions which allow a significant extension of hunting with hounds should not be.

Baroness Byford: I know that the Minister is becoming very frustrated, but at the end of the day, if he does not accept the amendments, which he should at least consider, the scenario mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, cannot be resolved. How will it be dealt with? Animal welfare will definitely suffer as a result. It is up to the Government to explain how we can overcome those difficult circumstances where there needs to be some form of control. Yet we are presented with a Bill which limits people's ability to control foxes where it is necessary, and in the most humane way. I do not understand the logic and, to be honest, the Minister has not given us an answer.

Lord Whitty: The noble Baroness disagrees with me. I accept that. A large proportion of this House, or, at least, those noble Lords who are here today and have cast their votes, disagree with me. But we are dealing with the activity of hunting with hounds. We do not accept that hunting with hounds is the most effective or the most humane way of dealing with foxes. Indeed the vast majority of the control of foxes is not through hunting with dogs. Therefore, I do not accept that we are greatly increasing the vulnerability of livestock, of birds or of anything by having the restrictions. Even if we were, why would we extend an exemption which is intended to avoid damage to shooting in a way that greatly undermines the central purpose of the Bill? From my point of view, it would not be logical to accept these amendments.

Earl Ferrers: As the noble Lord has said constantly, the Bill is against hunting with dogs. He has repeated that almost like a metronome. But does he not realise that, as a Minister in charge of a Bill that the Government have introduced, he must take into account the effect that his Bill will have on other things? The noble Baroness, Lady Mallaieu, has given a cast-iron case concerning certain activities that take place now which will no longer happen as a result of the Bill. It is not good enough for the noble Lord to say, "Well, that's too bad, but the Bill is just against hunting with dogs". My point is that the Bill affects a range of other things and the noble Lord should recognise that.

Lord Whitty: The only reason I repeat things, and I accept that I have repeated things rather frequently in this Committee, is because it often seems that other noble Lords have not got the point the first time round, or even the second, the third and the fourth time round. Clearly, we do not want inadvertently to affect other activities if there is not a way of avoiding it. This exemption is precisely for that purpose; that is, to avoid damage to game shooting when it is not the intent of the Bill to deal with that issue. There are other issues where there will be collateral effects, but, for the most part, they can be dealt with in other ways without reverting to a further extension or allowance of hunting with dogs.

Lord Eden of Winton: This is the first time round. This stage of the Bill is the first time that a Chamber in Parliament has had the opportunity seriously to consider the words in the Bill. Those words were contained in the original Banks Bill. Therefore, surely, since this is the first time round, the Minister will recognise that there is to be a second time round; namely, Report. Is it not normal for the Minister in charge of a Bill, when it has been made manifestly clear during an earlier stage of proceedings that what is contained in the Bill will perpetrate a lot of nonsenses, absurdities and anomalies, to go away and think about these matters and come back on Report with improved wording?

The Duke of Montrose: I am trying to follow this debate. When the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, spoke about huntsmen going to the lambing fields following a report of foxes worrying the lambs, did the Minister have in mind the huntsmen going with hounds to the lambing fields or did he see it as the huntsmen going with terriers? Representatives of one of the bodies which briefed us told us that half of the foxes killed by hunts are killed at the request of farmers; in other words, they are bolted from an earth and shot rather than chased across country. Has the Minister distinguished those two elements?

Lord Whitty: I am not entirely sure where the noble Duke gets his statistics from, but if he is referring to half the number of foxes which are killed by hunting with hounds, that is a small proportion of the total number of foxes. However, in answer to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Eden, yes, it is the duty of the Minister to consider absurdities that have been pointed out in the legislation and indeed I shall consider a number of points that have been made in this and the previous debate, but I am not convinced that the exemptions and the limitations on exemptions which are presented in the Bill are either absurd or ineffective. There may be some queries about the implications of some of them, but a reasonable balance was struck between the need to exempt certain activities so as not to cause collateral damage, or to do something which is not the intent of the Bill, and the need to put a limit on that exemption. Noble Lords may not feel that the balance has been struck in the right place, but there can be no argument that a balance would have to be struck if the basic logic of the Bill, whether it is a registration Bill or a banning Bill, were accepted. I appreciate that the noble Earl does not want either, in reality, but a balance has been struck.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I can see clearly what the Minister is arguing, but the problem is there is not a balance. The legislation refers to serious damage to game birds or wild birds. That is associated with the management of the countryside. We are talking about pests. Those pests are shot and they cannot be shot without the assistance of a dog. Surely it will be possible, when the Bill comes back on Report, to distinguish between those two factions.

Lord Whitty: That is possible, but the amendments would not precisely do that. They raise the limit on the exemption by broadening out the activities and increasing the number of dogs which could be used. They both would create much wider exemptions than the balance of opinion and approach in another place would allow. They do not strike a sensible balance between the two requirements.

Earl Peel: When we discussed my first group of amendments, I was aware that we had opened the door into Alice's Wonderland; I am now firmly convinced that we have entered Alice's Wonderland. I am incredulous at the Minister's inability to give logistical, sensible replies to the questions that have been raised. He constantly said that my amendments would undermine the central purpose of the Bill, which is hunting with hounds. I am talking about putting a terrier underground for the additional protection of livestock and birds that are not used for shooting. It has nothing to do with hunting with hounds.
	The Minister said that Members of the Committee were becoming a little frustrated. I can certainly concur with that, but they are nothing like as frustrated as those people in the countryside will be when they have to live with the idiocies that the Bill will produce. We shall have to come back to the amendments on Report. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 64 not moved.]

Earl Peel: moved Amendment No. 65:
	Page 8, line 10, at end insert—
	:TITLE3:"Mice
	The hunting of mice is exempt if it takes place on land—
	(a) which belongs to the hunter, or
	(b) which he has been given permission to use for the purpose by the occupier or, in the case of unoccupied land, by a person to whom it belongs."

Earl Peel: Here we go again. This time, I want to speak to Amendments Nos. 65 to 67. In Schedule 1, the hunting of rats and rabbits is exempt. The purpose of these three amendments is to try to establish from the Minister why that should be the case. As my noble friend Lord Mancroft has said on several occasions—indeed, as others have said, too—surely, the one single objective we should try to achieve when dealing with animal welfare issues is consistency.
	Why, therefore, should a rabbit be treated differently from a hare, or a mouse—any rodent, for that matter—from a rat? What is the logic in that? From a practical perspective, is a dog expected to be able to distinguish the difference between a hare and a rabbit, or is a terrier expected to be able to differentiate between a rat and a mouse?
	I noted what the Minister said about intent, but, having read Schedule 1 carefully, I am not convinced. Only the other day, my four dogs chased a mouse in the garage. The mouse escaped, but I believe that under this Bill I would have been committing an offence—unless of course I was prepared to argue that the mouse in question was likely to cause serious damage; or that I was obtaining meat to be used for human consumption—I am not normally in the habit of eating mice; or that I was participating in a field trial with my four dogs and a mouse in the garage. It conjures up a nice idea.
	However, the situation gets worse. Assuming that I was prepared to argue that the mouse was causing damage for whatever reason—and I am perfectly aware that mice have to be controlled—I believe I would still be committing an offence unless I resorted to Schedule 1, paragraph 5(a) and shot the mouse in the garage. I would then be up against the magistrates or my wife—and I have to say that given the circumstances I would probably choose the magistrate. Therefore, I simply say to the Minister that if rats are exempt under the Bill, I strongly suggest that mice, voles and other rodents should also be excluded.
	Amendments Nos. 66 and 67 deal with weasels and stoats. I find it extraordinary that under the Bill both those species are protected from being controlled by dogs. Both are prodigious killers of wild birds and game birds and they have to be controlled. In defence of the stoat, I am bound to say that I find it one of the most fascinating mammals that we have in this country. To watch a stoat perform its tricks as it mesmerises a rabbit before it kills it is one of the most extraordinary things in nature. But, that apart, as I said, they are prodigious killers and must be controlled.
	I have already mentioned the Andy Tharme report, which showed that there are up to five times more waders on moors managed for grouse than on other moorland. That is largely because of the predator control activities carried out by the gamekeepers. Research by Sunderland University shows the devastating effects that stoats have had on the golden plover, which is another Biodiversity Action Plan species. From my own experience, I know just what damage stoats can do. Trapping and shooting are of course essential ways of controlling stoats and weasels but, interestingly enough, a recent survey of the Moorland branch of the National Gamekeepers Association found that approximately 25 per cent of stoats were killed through the use of dogs.
	Given the physiology of both these species, I cannot believe that there can be any justification for treating them any differently from rats or rabbits. It is simply illogical. Indeed, like rats, they rarely run more than a few yards before the dogs catch them and so they are not hunted in the traditional sense. Given the nature of the upland terrain, shooting is often not a practical option.
	Once again, returning to the commitment given by the Minister, Alun Michael, and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that shooting would not be compromised by the Bill, I urge the Minister to reconsider what is, in effect, a very small item but, none the less, a very important one.
	It is equally important that we look at this matter not only from a shooting perspective but that we consider the effects of predation on all species of birds—particularly those classified under the Biodiversity Action Plan. Predation has a severe effect on these birds. Stoats play their part, and catching stoats with dogs is one important way of controlling their population. I beg to move.

Lord Monson: I hope that the noble Earl will push Amendment No. 65 to a Division—if not today, then at a later stage. Assuming that he wins the Division and that the House of Commons then insists on formally banning the hunting of mice with dogs, while permitting the hunting of rats with dogs, the national press, which until now has paid far too little attention to your Lordships' thorough and well informed deliberations, will at last have to sit up and take notice. Meanwhile, the international media—in the United States, on the Continent of Europe and elsewhere—will have an absolute field day.

Lord Willoughby de Broke: I support my noble friend's amendment but wish to go a little wider. I raised a point at Second Reading. It may not have been the right moment for the Minister to answer it then, but perhaps he could give it some attention now or even on Report.
	Under Schedule 1, the hunting of rabbits and rats is exempt. According to the Government's website, the reason is that rabbits are a serious pest in some parts of the country and hunting with dogs is a "reasonably humane" way of controlling rabbits. It says substantially the same thing about rats, mentioning that they are a pest.
	Can the Minister or any of those who wish to ban hunting explain why rabbits are a serious pest and it is therefore reasonably humane to control them by hunting with dogs and why foxes are a serious pest in some parts of the country but it is not reasonably humane to control them with dogs? I should simply like an explanation, which we have not yet received, of the rationale behind this whole Bill. It has been mentioned that one cannot eat a fox but one can eat a rabbit, but, after all, one cannot eat a rat, unless some Members of the Committee think that ratatouille has something to do with rats.
	My noble friend's amendment, about which I think he is serious, points to what he calls the Alice-in-Wonderland wording of Schedule 1. The schedule is deeply flawed, and I hope that the Minister will come back to some of the points and not just brush them aside at a later stage.
	I should very much like to hear why one cannot substitute foxes for rabbits under exempt hunting if they are a serious pest, as has been generally agreed, even by the Minister. If the Government agree that foxes are a serious pest in some parts of the country, why is it reasonably humane to hunt rabbits with dogs but not foxes?

Earl Ferrers: I find that one's imagination goes into overdrive in trying to consider how the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, can possibly not accept the amendment of my noble friend Lord Peel. It is absurd that one cannot hunt mice, stoats or weasels. As the noble Lord is bound to accept that, I wonder whether he would also care to consider exempting mink. After all, as we have explained, mink do the most terrible damage and now the hunting of them will not be allowed. Yesterday I asked the noble Lord how he proposed that they should be controlled. He did not answer. Indeed, his noble friend Lady Farrington stood up and suggested that we move on to the next business, which was not a very good way of getting the noble Lord out of a hole. The noble Baroness shakes her head but she jolly well did do that. I was there and I heard it. The noble Lord did not answer but it is his job to answer these points.
	The fact is that it seems curious to exempt stoats, weasels and mice. I can only say to my noble friend Lord Peel that shooting a mouse is nothing. The anti-mink people suggested on their website that I should be hanged, but that is far worse than shooting a stupid mouse.
	The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, must realise that the Bill is a total absurdity. Does he not wish that the Bill had been allowed a proper Committee and Report stage in its original form, when all these matters could have been discussed and the Bill improved instead of the Government having drawn stumps, as they did?

Lord Renton: Although I have lived for only 96 years, it was not until I saw the Marshalled List of amendments today that I realised that mice were ever hunted. I have lived in town and country and have always been anxious to get rid of mice, but the only way of getting rid of them was to get a cat to chase them or to snare or trap them.
	I greatly sympathise with my noble friend Lord Peel because he has had to tackle this remarkable schedule to the Bill and try to make it logically complete. If I may say so, his effort has been very successful. But I hope that I am not being tactless if I say that I think it was a slight excess of zeal to include the hunting of mice in any legal form.

Lord Swinfen: In his reply, can the Minister enlighten me on one point? The Bill says that the hunting of rats is exempt. Does that include the North American tree rat, commonly known as the grey squirrel?

Lord Whitty: I have yet to see a dog catch a grey squirrel.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Whitty: I mean as part of an organised hunt. That is the point. The noble Earl is drawing an Alice-in-Wonderland and Through-the-Looking-Glass picture and is setting up an Aunt Sally that does not exist. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, rightly pointed out that there is no issue of hunting mice with packs, except in the noble Earl's garage. I suspect that even then there was no intent on the owner to organise a pack. Therefore, a dog chasing a squirrel, a dog chasing a mouse, or even a dog chasing a stoat is not part of the problem that the Bill is attempting to address. We are trying to limit packs that become organised and to limit the amount of hunting with dogs in that sense.
	I am sure the noble Earl regards this as a logical extension. To throw up the issue of mice in this context is an attempt at satire by him—a rather heavy-handed one. No packs of hounds are organised to chase mice, therefore, we are not dealing with that issue. At the margin, there could be for some of the other animals.
	My expert advice on biology and legal matters is that a grey squirrel is not a rat; it is a squirrel. If necessary, I can elaborate on that in writing. I shall not go down the road of the travesty that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, portrays of how the Bill was dealt with in terms of time last time round. We have been over that ground already. He is wrong and I am right, but there we go.

Earl Ferrers: How can the noble Lord say that I am wrong and he is right when the Government decided to prevent proper parliamentary discussion on the Bill, truncated the whole matter and, in its place, produced a Bill enacted by the Parliament Act?

Lord Whitty: No one has used the Parliament Act. We are trying to avoid the deadlock in which the Parliament Act may become relevant, but so far in this Committee stage we are failing lamentably to do that. The last time around it was not the Government who finished the business. However, let us not go over all that ground again.
	If necessary I shall reply in detail in writing to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, on mink. The point on mink is that only a very small proportion of mink is accounted for through hunting. There was some dispute with my noble friend Lady Golding and Lord Hoyle about how much, but the estimate is that between 2.2 and 7.7 per cent of mink are actually accounted for through hunting. Trapping is recognised as the main means of controlling mink and is widely used by gamekeepers; there is also some shooting of mink. When there are many mink around, packs of good dogs catch at most one mink per hunt. Therefore, the vast majority of mink escape, so it is not a very efficient way of controlling mink. Other methods are not usually efficient, but they are more efficient than hunting.

Earl Ferrers: Perhaps the noble Lord will agree that even if it is not efficient, it is very good exercise and stops people becoming obese—the Government do not like people becoming obese.

Lord Whitty: I am not sure that the Government's policy on obesity is most efficiently dealt with by people chasing mink. I suspect there are rather more effective and indeed, I would venture, more pleasurable ways of getting thinner. We are straying rather wide of the amendment before the Committee.
	This is a bit of an Aunt Sally. I shall reflect on the important points made in the debate, as I have said, but making these proposals, especially if they were put into the Bill and returned to the Commons, is simply another way of your Lordships aggravating the situation and probably ensuring that compromise is even further away.

Lord Willoughby de Broke: Would the Minister answer the question I put to him: if rabbits are a serious pest in some parts of the country, and hunting with dogs is a reasonably humane way of controlling them, why is the same not applicable to foxes, which in some parts are a serious pest?

Lord Whitty: I thought that this amendment dealt with mice, stoats and weasels and we are now on to foxes and rabbits. We could pursue this for some time, but the exemption for rabbits is to recognise the reality of the countryside. There are ways in which rabbits are caught and we want to give certain exemptions for the way in which rabbiting and ratting is actually carried out in the countryside. It is probably the only bit of hunting in which I have engaged. This is not a personal plea, but it recognises the reality that hunting rabbits is somewhat different, provided it is subject to reasonable limitations, from hunting foxes with organised packs of hounds. If your Lordships cannot see that, we have very little common understanding of the problem.

Lord Monson: Does the Minister agree that Schedule 1 of the Bill formally permits the hunting of rats with hounds? To my knowledge it has not happened so far, but it could happen in the future if no alternative quarry is available. Why does the schedule specifically permit the hunting of rats with hounds?

Lord Whitty: I thought I had just answered that.

Earl Peel: I suppose there is a great danger that I will go down in history as the Peer who introduced hunting of mice into your Lordships House—a risk I have to take. It is not an Aunt Sally, as the Minister suggested. It is a very serious point. The noble Lord made an interesting observation. He said that there are no packs of hounds organised to hunt mice, therefore the issue is irrelevant. But, there are no packs of gun dogs bred to hunt hares and yet under the Bill, if more than two dogs chase a hare, an offence will be committed. I am sorry, but the noble Lord is being totally illogical in the response that he gave me.
	The Minister referred again to the issue of intent. Clearly, this is at the heart of the whole matter. We shall have to study with great intent—if I may use that word—whether the Bill really deals with the issue. I do not believe that it does. My noble friend Lord Mancroft raised exactly the same point. If we can introduce sensible amendments that deal with the issue of intent, I believe that there may be a way forward in dealing with these ridiculous anomalies. If we cannot, then quite frankly, we are left in an awkward and ridiculous situation.
	It is all very well the Minister hiding behind the fact that this is a Bill about hunting with hounds, but he is the Minister responsible for the countryside in your Lordships' House and he will have to live with the consequences of the Bill. I urge the Committee to think seriously. These are not Aunt Sallys; these are not irrelevant issues introduced to try to amuse people; they are serious points. I hope that the Minister will take them as such. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 66 and 67 not moved.]

Lord Mancroft: moved Amendment No. 68:
	Page 9, line 6, after "be" insert "diseased or"

Lord Mancroft: In moving Amendment No. 68, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 70 and 77. I believe that my noble friend Lord Soulsby will speak to the other two amendments in the group. Under Schedule 1, relating to exemptions, paragraph 8 states:
	"the hunter reasonably believes that the wild mammal is or may be injured".
	There are further provisions in the paragraph, under the heading, "Rescue of wild mammal". Presumably, therefore, it is recognised by the Government that a reasonable reason for exemption is that one of the relevant wild mammals is injured.
	Amendments Nos. 68, 70 and 77 would extend such an exemption for an injured mammal to an animal that has a disease. There are a number of reasons for that. We are aware—we have talked about the matter before in the Chamber—that within the fox population there has been an enormous increase in sarcoptic mange over the past 15 years. Like an injured animal, a diseased animal will often go to ground. So there is a need to deal with the issue.
	If the Government accept that an injured animal needs to be put out of its misery, so indeed should a diseased animal. We now know, for example—and we talked about this yesterday—that because of the League Against Cruel Sports' incredibly irresponsible management of its deer sanctuary on Exmoor, we have a very significant reservoir of bovine tuberculosis infection in those deer in the west country. The deer are riddled with worm and are very weak, according to the vets' reports of the British Deer Society. The noble Lords' vets from Defra took part in meetings to discuss the issue. So there is a very serious problem with disease there.
	We also have a problem with foxes having a disease. That needs to be dealt with. There are a number of hare diseases, most of which I cannot pronounce. I am not sure whether I would be able to recognise them. However, it is clear that those who know more about this matter than I believe that it is very important when these hares get diseases, which could have a very damaging effect on levels of population within localities, those responsible for their management have the ability to deal with them. So, it is very simple: the Government accept that injury to a wild mammal is a good reason for an exemption and all I suggest is that the illness of a wild mammal is an equally good reason for an exemption. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: The best way for me to intervene in this debate is to describe what happened in the House of Commons. The reference to "diseased" was included in the original Bill presented to the House of Commons. It was then extensively discussed, both in Committee and on Report. It was altered not in Committee but on Report.
	The argument was that on the one hand it could lead to abuse, in that it is pretty evident if an animal is injured, but it is not necessarily so evident whether an animal is diseased; and, on the other hand, using dogs to chase animals suspected of carrying an infectious disease would raise the risk of spreading the disease. On those two grounds your Lordships will make your judgment on whether they are right or wrong. The House of Commons has deleted the reference to disease at this point.
	If the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, wishes to speak I shall respond to him.

Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: As my noble friend Lord Mancroft has indicated, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 69 and 76. I hope these will not be contentious and will pluck at the heartstrings of noble Lords who listen. Both amendments concern the issue of orphaned cubs. They seek to ensure the use of dogs to dispatch orphaned cubs under the provisions of exempt hunting. The Bill as drafted would not allow the use of dogs to dispatch such orphaned cubs, and the need for this provision has been recognised by several bodies. My noble friend Lord Peel mentioned the research findings of Professor Macdonald of Oxford. He found that,
	"even if a rifle is used to kill adult foxes at the earth, there is a case to be made on welfare grounds that terriers should be used subsequently to ensure that cubs are not left without parental care".
	The Burns committee, of which I should declare I was a member, also suggested that there should be an exception from the general offence for orphaned cubs underground. The report stated:
	"It would be necessary to consider the form of exemptions that should apply in particular areas, especially sheep-rearing upland areas, and for particular cases . . . [for example] dealing with orphaned foxes underground".
	The Bill takes no account of that recommendation. One asks: how can it be more humane to let cubs starve to death rather than be dispatched quickly?
	Hunting usually takes place between mid August and early March, thus avoiding the time when vixens are nursing dependent young. But shooting foxes is indiscriminate and has no close season. It is therefore likely that in the event of a hunting ban, increased shooting of foxes will result in an increase in the number of orphaned cubs. It is essential that the Bill makes provision for the dispatch of such orphaned cubs and I believe the only method is the use of terriers underground.
	The legislature in Scotland has dealt with this issue. Specific provision for dealing with orphaned cubs using a dog below ground is made in the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002. That provision was supported by the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SSPCA). In evidence to the Scottish Parliament's Rural Development Committee, James Morris of the SSPCA said that,
	"if terriers were sent underground only to kill cubs there would be no cruelty to the cubs and the terriers would not suffer any damage".
	The Scottish SPCA says that it,
	"is opposed to the use of terriers underground. However, the Society accepts that, under current conditions, dependent cubs are at risk when a vixen is shot in springtime. The prospect of cubs starving to death below ground is unacceptable in welfare terms.
	"For this reason, and in the absence of a close season, the Society [the SSPCA] was reluctantly obliged to concede the use of terriers to despatch cubs".
	The two amendments seek to ensure the humane dispatch of orphaned cubs in the event of their losing their vixen.

Baroness Mallalieu: If the Government cannot accept the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, then I, for one, despair of the so-called animal lovers who have framed this legislation.

Lord Whitty: The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, has put forward arguments, but the situation is that the House of Commons has discussed the issue. It was discussed in Committee. Its decision was based on the fact that you could always claim there were cubs down a particular fox hole, and that that would be open to abuse. Your Lordships will take a view on the balance of those arguments and so will the House of Commons were you to send the legislation back to them. I am not giving a government opinion on this. As I say, it is entirely a free vote.

Earl Peel: I am surprised by what the Minister has said. Bills come to this House, having been scrutinised fully in the other place. That has not happened with this Bill. We have debates. We put forward our cases, like my noble friend has just done in a very succinct and powerful way. Under normal circumstances, the Minister concerned says that he will consider the matter and perhaps return to it at the next stage. Given the very powerful arguments that my noble friend has put, surely the Minister can at least do that.

Lord Whitty: I am afraid that once again I have to go back to the start of the Bill. We are in rather a unique situation on the Bill, which is subject to a free vote. The Government's position is primarily to guide the House on why conclusions were reached in another place and whether amendments passed in this House would increase or decrease the chances of agreement between the two Houses. At the moment, given earlier amendments to the Bill, the chances of such agreement are limited and the addition of another one may well aggravate rather than improve the situation.
	I am not giving a government view on the merits or otherwise of the noble Lord's amendments, except where I think they go far too far beyond the intent of the Bill, which I appreciate many noble Lords do not support, nor have I given a government view on other amendments. The duty of the Minister here is to present the reality of the position between the two Houses. So I do not have an opinion either way on the noble Lord's amendments.

Baroness Mallalieu: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister; I am grateful to him for giving way. Do the Government not see part of their duty in dealing with a Bill that is introduced in government time and presented as a government Bill to ensure that bad legislation does not reach the statute book?

Viscount Ullswater: I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, that the Bill was introduced as an animal welfare Bill. At this stage, the Minister is demonstrating beyond all measure that his hands are completely tied. If he gives way one iota to the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Eden that he should take matters away, look at them and perhaps come forward with a different amendment, it means that the Parliament Act cannot be used. I believe that the noble Lord is demonstrating that he has no latitude; he cannot make any form of amendment, whether it is a government amendment, or accept a Back-Bench amendment. From the noble Lord's answers today, we can see that the Bill is against hunters, not hunting.

Baroness Byford: I slightly disagree with my noble friend—the Bill is nothing to do with animal welfare. I thought that we had established that right at the beginning. Tony Banks said, and I quoted him on Second Reading, that the Bill is of political importance. He said that it is nothing to do with animal welfare; that is not important.
	Members of the Committee should not slide into thinking that that is what the Bill is supposed to be about, because clearly it is not. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, is quite right to say that she despairs. Most of us in this Chamber do despair. Because we are so restricted, there are practical things which need addressing, yet every day in Committee we have been thwarted. I have great regard for the Minister, but, as he has clearly demonstrated, he has taken his bat and ball and gone home, saying, "I can't do anything else. It's up to those at the other end". What is Parliament coming to, and where is democracy going? I think it is a disgrace.

Lord Whitty: I would love to take my bat and ball and go home, and I suspect that some other noble Lords may feel the same.
	I have to query what the noble Baroness has just said. Which Bill are we talking about here? The Committee has amended a Bill; the noble Baroness and others now purport to be in favour of a system of registration. Is she saying that that is not a system for animal welfare? Is it therefore all a charade simply to embarrass the Government and the House of Commons?

Baroness Byford: No, indeed. I think the Minister is being a little mischievous. I beg his pardon if I did not make it completely clear that the Bill that was originally presented to us on Tuesday to start in Committee was one that the Government had adapted, forced through by Tony Banks, to bring in a ban on hunting.

Lord Whitty: I appreciate the noble Baroness's clarification. Nevertheless, I think that people outside would at times wonder about the position of some who have spoken in support of amendments to the Bill and their motivation.
	Let me reply to the noble Baroness's other point and that of the noble Viscount. My hands are not tied—this is a free vote. The Government have no power over their Back Benchers on this vote and no desire to try to Whip the House into taking an opinion one way or the other. The House can take a vote on this and put it back to the House of Commons. As I have said, I have one vote, like everybody else. I have decided not to use my vote on this occasion or on any occasion in Committee.

Lord Eden of Winton: I am much obliged to the Minister. On that very point, I have a question, which I accept is hypothetical. Let us say that a private Member brings forward a Bill in the other place which imposes serious restrictions on shooting or fishing or tries to ban them altogether and that it is carried through that House on a free vote. When it then comes to this House, would the Minister say, notwithstanding the Government's declared policy not to interfere with shooting or fishing, that because it was carried on a free vote in the other place, he can do absolutely nothing about it, and it must go back inviolate because it was a free vote and that is democracy? Is that what he is saying?

Lord Whitty: No, I am saying almost the opposite. If it were a Private Member's Bill, the Government would have an opinion on it; if it were a Bill which the Government had not initiated or given commitments to see through, then they would have a view on it.
	In this case, in two election manifestos, the Government have said that they will allow a free vote of the House of Commons to determine this issue. The people who are thwarting democracy are those such as the noble Lord who make a travesty of the whole case by saying that the blocking or delaying of the Bill by the House of Lords is somehow a manifestation of democracy. It is precisely the reverse.

Lord Eden of Winton: It was a free vote in Parliament, not the House of Commons, and this House is a House of Parliament.

Lord Whitty: Yes, and it is therefore subject to the rules which govern relationships between the two Houses. That is what we are engaged in. There is nothing I can do to stop this House putting amendments back to the House of Commons. Some of the amendments I have warned against. If this amendment stood on its own, I think that the House of Commons should seriously consider it. But it does not stand on its own—it is grouped with amendments which, as the noble Earl has largely agreed, drive a coach and horses through the Bill which the House of Commons presented and through the original Bill that my colleague Alun Michael presented to the House of Commons.
	We are not talking in a vacuum. I am neutral at this Dispatch Box. Were I to cast my vote, in different circumstances I might have supported the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, but we are not in those circumstances. This House has already rejected the opinion several times expressed by the House of Commons and is therefore contributing to and precipitating a deadlock situation in which the issue of the Parliament Act may well arise. I have not done that—not even Ministers have done that. It is because of the decisions of this House in the face of the clearly expressed will of the democratic Chamber. That is the challenge to democracy, not the way expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Eden.

Lord Crickhowell: Does the Minister not understand the consequences of what he is saying? He is saying, effectively, that because of what happened at the other end, the Government now wash their hands of the matter and refuse to consider the impossible effect of the Bill—the fact that it is unworkable. But he is the Minister with responsibility for agriculture and the environment. When he finds that the Bill is unworkable and the consequences are disastrous, he will have no alternative but to accept the responsibility for this. Can I have his assurance that, bearing in mind that this House has established that the Bill is total nonsense, he is already instructing his officials to prepare the hunting legislation (amendment) Bill that will undoubtedly be required very soon?

Lord Whitty: That is a matter of opinion, and it is an opinion that I know the noble Lord genuinely holds. It is not my view; it is not the view of the Government; and, most importantly of all, it is not the view of the overwhelming majority of the House of Commons. That is the situation that this House must take into account.
	By all means pass this amendment or any other amendment, I am just telling you what I think the reception in the House of Commons will be if we pile amendment on amendment. Regrettably, at this stage, when we could have had a sensible conversation about practical difficulties with Schedule 1—to an extent I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Peel, that we should discuss such issues—your Lordships have instead already wrecked the Bill and will send back to the House of Commons something that is worse, in its terms, then what it has already overwhelmingly rejected. That is the real position and that is why we are discussing perfectly sensible amendments in an atmosphere and form that is unlikely to be acceptable to the House of Commons.

Viscount Ullswater: Surely the Minister must realise that this is a series of amendments, each one of which can be rejected by the House of Commons, or some of them can be accepted by the House of Commons to make Schedule 1 work properly. He is saying that there is absolutely no chance of making any amendment to the Bill, and it seems that the House of Lords has wasted its time in any sense. I believe that he is saying that, even if we were to make a small amendment to Schedule 1 to make it more workable, we would be wasting our time.

Lord Whitty: I said exactly the opposite. I said that I may regret the time taken, but I do not think that it is wasted if the penny eventually drops. The Government and I want to avoid deadlock; this House professes to want to avoid deadlock, but instead you are sending back to the House of Commons a Bill that will provoke deadlock and therefore avoid the sensible discussion of sensible amendments, such as that of the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby. That is the situation in which we find ourselves. We could prolong this discussion, but I think that the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, will want to decide whether to press the amendment to a vote today or to return to the matter, so that we can deal with the amendment in the normal way. We have strayed somewhat from the subject matter.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: We ought to speak to the amendment. I fear that we are entering a whole new area of the philosophy behind the Bill and the Second Reading points about its nature. I am trying to be fair; I am not trying to curtail debate; but there are two moods coming from Members of this House. Some of them want to know what the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, intends to do.

Baroness Byford: The difficulty is that the Minister did not answer the questions raised. No, he did not. The exchanges have developed from that, because the Minister's hands are, to a certain extent, tied so he does not want to get into full explanations of the amendments before us.

Lord Jopling: The Minister cannot have it both ways. On this and similar amendments, he has more or less said to us, as my noble friend Lord Ullswater said, that we are wasting our time. He must accept that that is the impression that he is giving us. But last night, when we were discussing fell packs, he made the point that if we want our voice to be heard in another place, we must write provisions in to the Bill here. He cannot have it both ways by saying, "Oh no, this will not be acceptable in another place", and therefore, more or less, "Forget it", yet at the same time saying that if we want to propose sensible amendments now, on Report, or on Third Reading, we must include them in the Bill. He is trying to have it both ways, which I find quite intolerable.

Lord Whitty: The noble Lord makes quite a clever point, but that is not what I said. I am not objecting to this House passing the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby. My response to it was to explain why the House of Commons had come to an alternative conclusion. The Government as such do not have a view on the amendment, and I have expressed some personal sympathy with it, were we in different circumstances. But if we think that there is still, at this late stage, some chance of compromise, by all means let us put this amendment to the House of Commons. That is what I had hoped, because the noble Lord's amendment and that of my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, who is not in his place today, addressed the Bill in the form that it came from the House of Commons and therefore had a higher chance of serious consideration by the House of Commons. But the background is as I described.
	I am not saying to your Lordships' Committee, "Do not pass this amendment", I am saying, "What you have done previously makes it less likely that this amendment will be accepted".

Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: I had not intended to divide the House, although having listened to the debate and having been to some extent encouraged by the Minister, I should like to test the opinion of the House as regards my amendment.

Lord Mancroft: In replying to both amendments, the Minister did not answer the points or make them clear at all. He insinuated that you could not identify these problems, but they have been identified for years. So the answer is not there. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Soulsby has made even clearer what the Minister implied, which is that there are problems with the Bill. It could be corrected. But the obsessive desire to destroy and the hatred of hunting of the other place is so much greater than its desire to promote animal welfare that it would rather leave cubs orphaned and sick animals out in the countryside than risk that one person could possibly ever go hunting once. That is what is so appalling. We may need to return to the amendment, but for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: moved Amendment No. 69:
	Page 9, line 6, after "be" insert "orphaned or"

Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: I repeat that I would like to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 70 to 75 not moved.]

Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: moved Amendment No. 76:
	Page 9, line 12, at end insert "except to despatch orphaned cubs"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 77 to 80 not moved.]

Lord Inglewood: had given notice of his intention to move it Amendment No. 81:
	Page 9, line 43, at end insert—
	"10 The hunting of foxes on foot in the upland areas of England and Wales where traditionally hounds have been hunted on foot is exempt."

Lord Inglewood: The amendment was conceived and drafted when the structure of the Bill was very different from that of the Bill as it is now. Bearing in mind remarks made yesterday, a number of which will require a serious consideration and reflection, I shall not move the amendment now, although I should like to come back to this matter on Report.

[Amendment No. 81 not moved.]
	Schedule 1 agreed to.

Baroness Mallalieu: moved Amendment No. 82:
	After Schedule 1, insert the following new schedule—
	:TITLE3:SCHEDULESection (The Hunting Tribunal) The Hunting Tribunal
	:TITLE3:President and deputy
	1 (1) The Lord Chancellor shall appoint a President of the Tribunal.
	(2) A person may be appointed as President only if—
	(a) he has a ten year general qualification within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (c. 41),
	(b) he is an advocate or solicitor in Scotland of at least ten years' standing, or
	(c) he is a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland, or a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland, of at least ten years' standing.
	2 (1) The Lord Chancellor may appoint a member of the panel of chairmen of the Tribunal as deputy President of the Tribunal.
	(2) The deputy President—
	(a) may act for the President if he is unable to act or unavailable or during a vacancy in the office of President, and
	(b) shall perform such other functions as the President may assign or delegate to him.
	3 The Lord Chancellor may authorise a member of the panel of chairmen of the Tribunal—
	(a) to act for the President if he and the deputy President (if there is one) are unable to act or unavailable;
	(b) to act for the President during a vacancy in that office if there is no deputy President;
	(c) to act for the deputy President if he is unable to act or unavailable.
	:TITLE3:Chairmen
	4 (1) The Lord Chancellor shall appoint persons to a panel of chairmen of the Tribunal.
	(2) A person may be appointed under this paragraph only if—
	(a) he has a seven year general qualification within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (c. 41),
	(b) he is an advocate or solicitor in Scotland of at least seven years' standing, or
	(c) he is a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland, or a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland, of at least seven years' standing.
	:TITLE3:Members
	5 (1) The Lord Chancellor shall appoint persons to a panel of members of the Tribunal.
	(2) A person may be appointed under this paragraph only if he—
	(a) is on the general list of veterinary surgeons (within the meaning of section 2 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (c. 36)), or
	(b) has experience relating to the welfare of animals or the management of land which in the Lord Chancellor's opinion makes it appropriate to appoint him as a member of the Tribunal.
	:TITLE3:Tenure
	6 (1) A person appointed under any of paragraphs 1 to 5 shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of his appointment (subject to this paragraph).
	(2) A person appointed under any of paragraphs 1 to 5 may resign by notice in writing to the Lord Chancellor.
	(3) The Lord Chancellor may dismiss a person appointed under any of paragraphs 1 to 5—
	(a) on the grounds that he is unable or unwilling to perform his functions, or
	(b) for misbehaviour.
	:TITLE3:Proceedings
	7 The Tribunal shall sit in such places and at such times as the Lord Chancellor shall determine (and may hold more than one sitting at a time).
	8 (1) The President shall make arrangements for determining which of the persons appointed under paragraphs 1 to 5 shall constitute the Tribunal at each sitting.
	(2) The arrangements shall, in particular—
	(a) ensure that at each sitting the Tribunal consists of or includes the President or a member of the panel of chairmen, and
	(b) make provision for replacement in a case where the Tribunal consists of a single member who becomes unable to act.
	9 Decisions of the Tribunal may be taken by majority vote.
	10 The President may give directions about the practice and procedure of the Tribunal.
	11 Rules under section (The Hunting Tribunal) may, in particular, make provision—
	(a) about representation of parties;
	(b) about withdrawal of proceedings;
	(c) about the admission of members of the public to proceedings;
	(d) about recording and promulgating decisions;
	(e) by reference to a direction given or to be given by the President.
	:TITLE3:Evidence
	12 The Tribunal—
	(a) may call an expert witness to give evidence on a matter of fact arising in proceedings before it, and
	(b) may have regard to advice provided to it under section (Advisory bodies).
	:TITLE3:Costs
	13 If the Tribunal thinks that a party to proceedings before it has acted unreasonably it may order the party to pay all or part of the costs incurred by another party to the proceedings.
	:TITLE3:Council on Tribunals
	14 In Part I of Schedule 1 to the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 (c. 53) (tribunals under general supervision of Council) the following shall be inserted before paragraph 22—
	
		
			  
			 "Hunting 21B.   The Hunting Tribunal established by section (The Hunting Tribunal) of the Hunting Act 2004." 
		
	
	:TITLE3:Money
	15 The Lord Chancellor—
	(a) may pay sums by way of remuneration, allowances and expenses to a person appointed under any of paragraphs 1 to 5,
	(b) may pay sums by way of or in respect of a pension to a person appointed under any of paragraphs 1 to 5,
	(c) may make staff and other facilities available to the Tribunal, and
	(d) may pay sums by way of allowances and expenses to an expert witness called under paragraph 12."

Baroness Mallalieu: I can speak to this amendment very quickly indeed, because it is from the original government Bill. It reintroduces the hunting tribunal and makes provision for the Lord Chancellor to appoint a president of the tribunal and a panel of chairmen. It prescribes the legal qualifications that the people holding those posts must have. It also deals with the appointment of a panel of members of the tribunal, who must be either veterinary surgeons or have appropriate experience related to the welfare of animals or the management of land. The wording is precisely the same as that which the Government apparently thought fit and appropriate when they introduced the Bill in December 2002. I beg to move.

Lord Palmer: moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 82, Amendment No. 83:
	Line 6, at end insert "he neither supports nor opposes hunting with dogs and if"

Lord Palmer: Amendments Nos. 83, 84 and 85 are not in any way dissimilar to Amendment No. 13, which I moved yesterday. The principle behind the amendment is to ensure that the president, the chairman and the members of the hunting tribunal are unbiased and, consequently, that the process is scrupulously fair. The people chosen for these positions will be looked upon to make just and fair decisions and as such should not have preconceived ideas about hunting with dogs. That could be the case if the persons concerned had links with either pro or anti-hunting organisations.
	A deep knowledge of the countryside really is required. Yesterday, we had several diversions about the example of drag hunting which the noble Lord, Lord Eden, was able to squash very firmly. Just as members of juries, magistrates and judges are barred from legal cases in which they have some kind of personal knowledge, so should the persons holding these positions. They have to be fair, but they also have to be seen to be fair.
	We have seen in previous debates how views on particular activities can be portrayed via the propaganda of some animal rights organisations, and indeed how totally misleading information can be fed into the legislative process. Equally, some supporters of hunting can be too close to an issue and fail to take an objective view or accept the legitimate concerns of those who in fact see things differently. It is felt that if the persons involved in the hunting tribunal are biased, disputes will not be settled satisfactorily and the whole process, which will no doubt already have its critics and detractors, will lose all sense of credibility.
	When my noble friend Lord Burns was asked to chair the Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs in England and Wales, it was on the basis that he himself had no preconceived ideas at all about hunting, and the report that he and his team subsequently produced was authoritative and widely praised by both sides of the debate. There is no better example of why the people chosen for these positions should not have either pro or anti-hunting connections. I beg to move.

Lord Monson: Although I see nothing wrong whatever with Amendment No. 85, which I think is a fair cut and possibly a good one, I must disagree with my noble friend on Amendments Nos. 83 and 84, for the simple reason that they do not include the word "public". As drafted, they extend to private opinions. How can you possibly know what people's private opinions are? After what happened in the European Parliament this week, it is more likely than ever that people will keep to themselves private opinions which they feel may be unpopular. So for all their good intentions, I think that Amendments Nos. 83 and 84 are not properly drafted, although I think that Amendment No. 85 is probably a good one.

The Lord Bishop of Worcester: I, too, should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 83 and 84. I have a logical difficulty in that I do not see how it is possible neither to support nor to oppose hunting with dogs, or indeed anything, unless it be that you do not know what you think about the subject at all. If a person does not know what they think about the subject at all, I do not understand how they could be on the tribunal.
	What I want to say is perhaps a reflection on the debate. Although those who were very opposed to the Bill as it came from Commons have voiced very strong objections, I am sure they recognise that we are dealing here with an issue of conscience. Among those who oppose all hunting with dogs are those who have a real objection of conscience which is not politically motivated if by "politics" you mean party political or class conscious or whatever, but is simply a feeling that hunting with dogs contravenes what should be the relationship of human beings to animals.
	In that circumstance, the question is whether a person with those views can play any useful part in a tribunal of this kind. It seems clear that two sorts of person would be debarred from membership of the tribunal: those who opposed the existence of the tribunal on the grounds that hunting should not be regulated at all; and those who believe that hunting should not be allowed at all. But that leaves open a whole large range of people who might personally be opposed to hunting with dogs but who none the less are prepared to take part in the administration of this regulatory framework which the Bill as now drafted would bring into force.
	As I say, I have difficulties with the logic of Amendments Nos. 83 and 84. Moreover, precisely the presence on the tribunal of people who are known to hold very opposing views on this subject, but who none the less are prepared to administer the law as it comes to be passed, might actually enhance the credibility of the tribunal if it comes into existence.

Lord Whitty: I note that Amendment No. 82, as my noble friend Lady Mallalieu indicated, reinstates most of the wording of the Bill as originally introduced in the House. The wording was changed in Committee, and with the Government's support in all respects. However, your Lordships are engaging in a pick-and-mix approach to the changes made in Committee. This amendment would revert to the original Bill.
	Amendments Nos. 83, 84 and 85, however, would add new requirements regarding the president of the tribunal and the members of the panel. As the right reverend Prelate has just said, Amendments Nos. 83 and 84 effectively deal with the private opinions of the president and the members of the tribunal. There are gradations here—many speakers oppose hunting in certain respects but not in others; others support hunting in some respects and not others—and the balance will vary. Our ability to exclude from an expert panel designed to regulate hunting anyone who has ever expressed a negative opinion or positive opinion about hunting seems nonsensical. In any case, as the right reverend Prelate said, these are private opinions on which it is noticeably difficult to legislate.
	Appointment to public office involves a rigorous process, part of which is to establish competence, knowledge, expertise and—in cases of a judicial or quasi-judicial operation—impartiality. Undoubtedly, the appointment of the president of the tribunal will be subject to those considerations, and it will no doubt deliver what the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, is seeking: an impartial and competent president.
	The flanker members of the tribunal are expected to bring specific sorts of expertise. Not only do the objections to opinion apply in relation to them; it would be somewhat difficult to exclude from either flank of the tribunal either those who were heavily involved with a hunt or organisation that supported hunting or an animal welfare organisation whose policy was to oppose a hunt.
	We discussed a similar amendment on the registrar, when it became clear that what was actually being proposed was not to allow bodies such as the RSPCA to apply. I do not think that the British public would understand how a Bill that—in its present form, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, would accept—is dealing with animal welfare could exclude members of one of the country's leading animal welfare organisations from participating in the regulation of that sector. The public appointments procedure may decide that one of those people has a view that is too extreme or too narrow or had other associations, but the process will sort that out. However, if you want to ban any member of a hunt, a hunt supporting organisation or an animal welfare organisation from participating at all, then I think that that is a matter not for legislation but for the judgment of the appointments process.

Lord Mancroft: I broadly agree with what the noble Lord said on the issue; I also refer to our discussion of the registrar yesterday. I do not think that anybody mentioned the RSPCA—perhaps one person did, but I certainly did not—so I did not know where the reference came from. If the Minister is suggesting that the RSPCA would somehow have a political bias in respect of hunting, I must admit that I would find it very difficult to disagree with him.

Lord Whitty: It would be indefensible in terms of public opinion to exclude somebody who happened to be a member of the RSPCA, whatever their view of the national policy in this respect, from being a member of the tribunal. The appointments process will suss out whether their approach was appropriate for a tribunal which has to exercise its judgment.

Lord Palmer: The Minister used the expression "nonsensical" about the amendments. That is the great worry. The Banks Bill is completely nonsensical to anybody who loves, and lives in, the countryside. It is based purely on complete and utter ignorance; therefore I suppose that, technically, the expression "nonsensical" could be applied to the entire Banks Bill. I will read carefully what the Minister has said about these amendments. I take the points made by my noble friend Lord Monson and the right reverend Prelate. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 83, as an amendment to Amendment No. 82, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 84 to 86, as amendments to Amendment No. 82, not moved.]

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 82:
	After Schedule 1, insert the following new schedule—
	:TITLE3:SCHEDULESection (The Hunting Tribunal) The Hunting Tribunal

President and deputy

1 (1) The Lord Chancellor shall appoint a President of the Tribunal.
	(2) A person may be appointed as President only if—
	(a) he has a ten year general qualification within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (c. 41),
	(b) he is an advocate or solicitor in Scotland of at least ten years' standing, or
	(c) he is a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland, or a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland, of at least ten years' standing.
	2 (1) The Lord Chancellor may appoint a member of the panel of chairmen of the Tribunal as deputy President of the Tribunal.
	(2) The deputy President—
	(a) may act for the President if he is unable to act or unavailable or during a vacancy in the office of President, and
	(b) shall perform such other functions as the President may assign or delegate to him.
	3 The Lord Chancellor may authorise a member of the panel of chairmen of the Tribunal—
	(a) to act for the President if he and the deputy President (if there is one) are unable to act or unavailable;
	(b) to act for the President during a vacancy in that office if there is no deputy President;
	(c) to act for the deputy President if he is unable to act or unavailable.

Chairmen

4 (1) The Lord Chancellor shall appoint persons to a panel of chairmen of the Tribunal.
	(2) A person may be appointed under this paragraph only if—
	(a) he has a seven year general qualification within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (c. 41),
	(b) he is an advocate or solicitor in Scotland of at least seven years' standing, or
	(c) he is a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland, or a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland, of at least seven years' standing.

Members

5 (1) The Lord Chancellor shall appoint persons to a panel of members of the Tribunal.
	(2) A person may be appointed under this paragraph only if he—
	(a) is on the general list of veterinary surgeons (within the meaning of section 2 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (c. 36)), or
	(b) has experience relating to the welfare of animals or the management of land which in the Lord Chancellor's opinion makes it appropriate to appoint him as a member of the Tribunal.

Tenure

6 (1) A person appointed under any of paragraphs 1 to 5 shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of his appointment (subject to this paragraph).
	(2) A person appointed under any of paragraphs 1 to 5 may resign by notice in writing to the Lord Chancellor.
	(3) The Lord Chancellor may dismiss a person appointed under any of paragraphs 1 to 5—
	(a) on the grounds that he is unable or unwilling to perform his functions, or
	(b) for misbehaviour.

Proceedings

7 The Tribunal shall sit in such places and at such times as the Lord Chancellor shall determine (and may hold more than one sitting at a time).
	8 (1) The President shall make arrangements for determining which of the persons appointed under paragraphs 1 to 5 shall constitute the Tribunal at each sitting.
	(2) The arrangements shall, in particular—
	(a) ensure that at each sitting the Tribunal consists of or includes the President or a member of the panel of chairmen, and
	(b) make provision for replacement in a case where the Tribunal consists of a single member who becomes unable to act.
	9 Decisions of the Tribunal may be taken by majority vote.
	10 The President may give directions about the practice and procedure of the Tribunal.
	11 Rules under section (The Hunting Tribunal) may, in particular, make provision—
	(a) about representation of parties;
	(b) about withdrawal of proceedings;
	(c) about the admission of members of the public to proceedings;
	(d) about recording and promulgating decisions;
	(e) by reference to a direction given or to be given by the President.

Evidence

12 The Tribunal—
	(a) may call an expert witness to give evidence on a matter of fact arising in proceedings before it, and
	(b) may have regard to advice provided to it under section (Advisory bodies).

Costs

13 If the Tribunal thinks that a party to proceedings before it has acted unreasonably it may order the party to pay all or part of the costs incurred by another party to the proceedings.

Council on Tribunals

14 In Part I of Schedule 1 to the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 (c. 53) (tribunals under general supervision of Council) the following shall be inserted before paragraph 22—
	
		
			  
			 "Hunting 21B.   The Hunting Tribunal established by section (The Hunting Tribunal) of the Hunting Act 2004." 
		
	
	:TITLE3:Money
	15 The Lord Chancellor—
	(a) may pay sums by way of remuneration, allowances and expenses to a person appointed under any of paragraphs 1 to 5,
	(b) may pay sums by way of or in respect of a pension to a person appointed under any of paragraphs 1 to 5,
	(c) may make staff and other facilities available to the Tribunal, and
	(d) may pay sums by way of allowances and expenses to an expert witness called under paragraph 12."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 2 [Consequential Amendments]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 86A:
	Page 10, line 25, after "is" insert "registered or"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
	Schedule 3 agreed to.
	In the Title:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 87:
	Line 1, after "prohibit" insert "unregistered"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Title, as amended, agreed to.
	House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Women in Prison

Baroness Gale: rose to call attention to the position of women in prison; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, the subject of women in prison is a difficult and complex one, as no doubt we shall hear from noble Lords taking part in this debate. I am very pleased that a number of noble Lords with experience in this field have agreed to speak, and I look forward to their contribution. I am especially pleased that we now have a two-and-a-half hour debate rather than the one-hour Unstarred Question originally planned.
	Ten years ago, the average female prison population was 1,611; five years ago, it was 3,247; in September this year, 4,420 women were in prison. Women prisoners make up a small proportion of prisoners, just 6 per cent of the prison population. But there is grave concern over the increase; it poses the question why there has been such a rise in the number of women in prison.
	The criminal justice system has been designed to control and rehabilitate men. The special needs of women have tended to be overlooked, perhaps because they make up such a small proportion of the prison population. Those special needs include: their childcare responsibilities, as women are usually the main carer; the fact that they are more likely to be addicted to drugs; and their often poor physical and mental health. Over 50 per cent of women gaoled have suffered domestic abuse. One in three has experienced sexual abuse. About 25 per cent have been in local authority care during their childhood. Around 40 per cent have a serious drug problem. Many suffer from mental health problems. Some 37 per cent say that they have attempted suicide at some time.
	It would be no exaggeration to say that these are, in the main, inadequate women, made even more so by being in prison. The majority of women in gaol do not commit serious or violent crimes. The excellent report entitled Prison Reform Trust Fact File states:
	"More women were sent to prison in 2002 for shoplifting than any other crime. Just over 2,700 women were received into custody for this offence. They accounted for nearly a third of all women sentenced to immediate custody in 2002. The majority of women serve very short sentences. In 2002, 40 per cent served a sentence of three months or less, nearly three-quarters were sentenced to 12 months or less. Overall the average sentence length was 10 months".
	Do these offences really require a prison sentence? Are there other ways in which the debt to society could be paid, which would be of greater benefit to the women and their families? Women offenders are relatively young, with only l6 per cent over 40. As around 60 per cent of women in prison have children under 16, many children will be unable to have regular contact with their mother.
	I had the opportunity of visiting Holloway Prison several months ago. Even on that short visit, I learnt so much, especially about the state of health of women prisoners and the problems of transportation of women from court to custody. I shall use Holloway as an example. Holloway does not refuse to take women prisoners, however late they arrive. It does not operate a lock out. Other male prisons do have a lock-out—they will not accept prisoners after a given time; 7 p.m., for example. Consequently, male prisoners are transferred to prison before women prisoners, as the private companies that transfer them are concerned not to have any prisoners left in their care, or in care of the police or courts, at the end of the day.
	The reason that Holloway does not refuse anyone is that it is concerned that it is in the interests of the women themselves that they are dealt with as soon as possible, but, repeatedly, that is being taken advantage of by the system. Women are frequently kept on the transport van for long periods of time while male prisoners are transferred to and from court ahead of them. That long delay for women is unacceptable. Their day probably started early, in readiness for their court appearance. They then appear in court, and, if sentenced or remanded, must go through the trauma of being taken into custody. They then have to wait to be taken into custody. They are taken all around London, while male prisoners are delivered first. By the time that they arrive at Holloway and are processed through the system, it can be very late. One can imagine the state that they must be in by that time.
	I understand that there are moves to improve the system of escorting prisoners and that a new escort contract came into operation in August of this year. Apparently, the option of escorting women separately from male prisoners is considered to be prohibitively expensive. I assume from that that the problem of late arrival for women prisoners may not be solved. There seem to be many new measures to improve the position of women being escorted to prison, but does the new contract take account of the effect on women prisoners of late arrival? If the women cannot be escorted into custody separately, how can the problems be overcome? I understand that the operation of the contract will be reviewed after three months. I appreciate that it is too early to assess the effects, but I ask the Minister to comment on how the matter of late arrival can be dealt with, so that women arrive at prison at a reasonable time.
	The health of women prisoners is a matter of grave concern. A Prison Reform Trust report says:
	"Two thirds of women show symptoms of at least one neurotic disorder, such as depression, anxiety and phobias. More than half are suffering from a personality disorder. Among the general population less than a fifth of women suffer from these disorders. Half of the women in prison are on prescribed medication such as anti-depressants or anti-psychotic medicine and there is evidence that the use of medication increases whilst in custody. Of all the women who are sent to prison, thirty-seven per cent say they have attempted suicide at some time in their life".
	I made that point earlier. The report continues:
	"The number and rate of self-harm incidents is much higher amongst women than men. In 2003, 30 per cent of women were reported to have harmed themselves compared with six per cent of men. On average each woman who injured herself did so five times compared to twice for men. So while women make up just six per cent of the prison population, they accounted for nearly half (46%) of all reported self-harm incidents".
	Suicides rates in women's prisons are becoming a serious problem. There has been a worrying increase in the number of women in custody committing suicide. I am aware that, in March, Paul Goggins, the prisons Minister, announced a suicide prevention strategy that applies to all prisoners, male and female. A specifically targeted and separate suicide prevention strategy is being developed for women. Although it is early days, can the Minister say whether that strategy is in place? Is there any evidence yet of improvement?
	In England and Wales, there are 125 male prisons and 16 women's prisons. That means that many women are placed hundreds of miles away from their family while they are held in custody. That can mean that it is possible for them to have few visits from their children, family, or friends. They become increasingly isolated and more vulnerable as a result. There are no women's prisons in Wales, for example, so any woman who lives in Wales, and is sentenced will be a long way away from her family. I am aware that there is a small number of women prisoners from Wales, and I am certainly not advocating the building of a women's prison in Wales, but, like other women prisoners, they need to maintain contact with their children while in custody. Being far away from home will not help them or their children. The Prison Service could convert male prison facilities to create additional places for women as they have done in a few male prisons in England. What further measures can be taken to ensure women can be placed nearer their home?
	I have raised several questions to which I trust that the Minister will be able to respond, but I recognise that the Government have brought forward initiatives such as the Women's Offending Reduction Programme, which will co-ordinate work across departments and agencies to ensure that policies, service programmes and other interventions respond more appropriately to the needs and characteristics of women offenders. The publication Reducing Crime—Changing Lives is the Government's plan to transform the management of offenders, including the creation of a new National Offender Management Service, which commenced in July of this year.
	As I understand it, the emphasis of the Women's Offending Reduction Programme will be on greater use of community services for lower risk offenders, reserving custody only for serious, dangerous and highly persistent offenders. That approach, if successful, should mean a reduction in women prisoners. As I have already pointed out, most women do not commit serious crime; the majority commit petty offences and should not be in gaol. The programme is to run for three years. Progress will be monitored and reviewed at the end of each year. Can the Minister say whether the results of each year's analysis are to be published, so that we can all learn about the success rate of the programme as it progresses, year on year?
	We are debating women in prison, and I should like to say a little about young women and girls in prison. Girls in prison will only ever make up a minute fraction of the total prison population. Girls aged 18 or under currently make up just 0.2 per cent of the total prison population and 3 per cent of the female prison population. The fact that there are now no 15 or 16-year-old girls held in prison is a huge step forward and it is good to know that this practice ended in December 2003. These are highly vulnerable and needy girls who can be best cared for in the community.
	The Howard League for Penal Reform has applauded the work of the Youth Justice Board in ending the imprisoning of these children, but calls on the board to make greater efforts to develop community services so that girls are no longer detained in secure children's homes or secure training centres. Does the Minister agree with this view?
	I understand there are plans to build five prisons-within-prisons for girls aged 18, the first in Downview and Eastwood Park prisons. These plans have been highly criticised by the Howard League, which, as I am sure your Lordships are aware, has undertaken much research on girls in prison. The league goes so far as to say that it deplores the Home Secretary's plans to build five prisons-within-prisons for girls aged 17, reneging on promises to find alternative ways of dealing with this age group. Can the Minister comment on how we should be treating 17-year-old girls in custody?
	I have raised several matters that are of concern to me regarding women in prison, and I have drawn those to the attention of the Minister. I look forward to the debate this afternoon and to the responses from other noble Lords and from the Minister. I beg to move for Papers.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I express my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this very important subject. The noble Baroness is right when she mentions that the matters she has identified are of serious concern to all of us. For that reason, I am delighted—and I endorse what she said in this regard—that the usual channels saw fit to give us more time.
	The number of women in prison has been rising steadily, and I am grateful that the noble Baroness has given us some figures. The stark reality is that in 1993 the figure stood at 1,580. In March 2004 there were 4,589 women in prison, representing about 6 per cent of the total prison population in England and Wales. Women constitute 51.3 per cent of the overall population in England and Wales.
	Ample research has been conducted on this subject. There are some very stark conclusions that researchers have identified. Perhaps I may mention a few of them. As regards offences, women tend to commit less crime and their offences are generally less serious. The question therefore arises: why are we now imprisoning three times more women than in 1993?
	Some 20 per cent of women in prison are foreign nationals compared with about 11 per cent of males. What is being done to inform foreign nationals about the way that they are being exploited by drug barons and the consequences that they will face when they are caught? Women have a different type of drug use from men, with a higher level of hard drugs and poly-drug use. What treatment models are available in our prisons? Are they adequate?
	Turning to the family, women are normally the primary carers for elderly relatives and children. Around 55 per cent of women in prison have children under 16 years old and more than a third have a child under 5 years old. The question therefore arises: is prison appropriate in such cases? Because of the smaller number of women's prisons, women tend to be further away from their homes, which makes important links with their families that much more difficult. What is being done to ensure that women serve their sentences near their homes? Is it conducive to maintaining inmates' relationships with their families by keeping them away from their home surroundings?
	We can also look at some other relevant factors. In terms of healthcare, women tend to place a greater demand on medical services than men. Approximately 20 per cent of women prisoners ask to see a doctor or nurse each day, which is almost twice the number of male prisoners. In one study on mental health, more than 66 per cent of women in prison were assessed as having a neurotic disorder, such as depression, anxiety or phobias. The comparable figure in the community is fewer than 20 per cent. Should mentally disordered women be in prison at all?
	Quite rightly, the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, pointed to suicide rates for women in prison, which have increased from one in 1993 to nine in 2002. So far this year, there have been 14, which is an unacceptable figure. Why? As regards self-injury, women account for more than 25 per cent of self-harm incidents in prison, but they are only 6 per cent of the prison population. Does isolation from family contribute to self-harm?
	In terms of security, women generally present much lower risks than men. Women's prisons do not experience as many serious incidents, although the rate of adjudications is higher. What is the explanation for that?
	In 2003, 31 per cent of women in custody were from ethnic minority groups, compared with 24 per cent of men. That may in part be accounted for by the higher level of female foreign nationals. But even taking out the foreign nationals from that figure, why is it that the population of black women in prison is higher than their representation in the community?
	I turn now to resettlement. While for men the first priority is getting employment, for women accommodation normally ranks much higher. Women tend to continue to try to manage children and homes from prison and are less likely than men to have partners who will take responsibility for maintaining their homes and families during custody.
	There is an overwhelming need to acknowledge the extent to which drug and alcohol misuse and mental health needs play a part in women's offending. We have the consultative document entitled, Protecting the public and preventing re-offending—the Government's strategy for women offenders, which was published in 2000. I certainly welcome that initiative. The publication states that more than 10 per cent of women prisoners harmed themselves and 34 per cent considered suicide during their time in prison; 25 per cent had been in care as a child; 40 per cent left school early; and only 3 per cent were in paid employment before prison. In one survey, 50 per cent of women prisoners had suffered violence at home and more than a third had been sexually abused. One in five had spent time in a mental hospital or psychiatric ward and 40 per cent had treatment for a mental health problem during the year before going to prison. Fifty per cent of women were taking medication for a mental health problem.
	Following the period of consultation, a further report was published by the Home Office in which it announced the setting up of the Women's Offending Reduction Programme. A delivery plan was issued to key stakeholders in July 2003. It looked at issues of bail and remand, sentencing, community provision, prisoner resettlement, women offender management and crime prevention—all issues to which we are still asking what is the outcome. Of course, there is a broad range of areas on which the Government have taken action, which is certainly welcome.
	The initial focus obviously must be on a greater diversion of women at the pre-court and pre-sentence stages and encouraging greater use of community disposals so that custody is used only for women who present a real risk. A partial solution, if properly implemented, should be a fundamental means of improving the position of women in custody, which, effectively, will mean that there will be fewer of them in custodial institutions.
	I was a member of the Commission on Women and the Criminal Justice System. The Fawcett Society published its report in March 2004. The commission was chaired by Vera Baird QC, MP for Redcar, which was set up as a result of concerns about the impact of current laws and practices on women in England and Wales. It concluded that women are systematically disadvantaged. The report makes a series of recommendations which would, if implemented, create a better and more equitable way of dealing with women in the system.
	The commission's recommendations in relation to prisons are very specific. The Prison Service should fully address sexual harassment in its equality action plan. The Prison Officers' Association should proactively challenge discriminatory practices and support individual women who complain of discriminatory treatment. Overall, I hope that the Minister will look at those recommendations with a view to informing us how many of them are being implemented.
	Perhaps I may conclude with clear recommendations that I believe are appropriate. Ultimately, there should be a situation where only in exceptional circumstances, and for very serious matters, women should receive custodial sentences. Let us enshrine that in our sentencing guidelines. With women, we are not just sentencing an individual, we are sentencing the whole family.

The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I am enormously grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, for enabling this debate to take place. Like others, I am glad that it has been allocated a proper length of time. I hope that the noble Baroness will take this right when I say that I particularly appreciate the measured way in which she has presented the situation to us. Most of us have some knowledge of the statistics, but despite the fact that behind them lies an enormous weight of human tragedy they were related to us in a measured way. Similarly, as a House we have to take a measured view of what is going on.
	I shall use my time to refer to one matter and then to reflect on the general situation. I shall not rehearse the statistics already set out by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, save to say that whichever figures you look at and from whichever base you start, the position of women in prison is not getting better. That is not because the Government and the Prison Service do not want it to do so. Rather, it is due to other pressures, and it is from those that the first part of what I want to say arises.
	Earlier this month I went to a meeting of West Midlands chaplains at Her Majesty's Prison, Brockhill. We received a welcome address from the governor of the prison which all those present regarded as in a class of its own. I have visited the prison on a number of occasions because it is in my diocese. It has been through the most terrible period during which there were numerous instances of self-harm and suicide. When I have visited the prison in the context of those suicides, I felt that it was a beleaguered institution in which terrible things were being suffered. However, the most terrible suffering arose when someone committed suicide. The staff and the governor all felt that they were being inspected and blamed, when in fact the situation was extraordinarily difficult to handle.
	The present governor and her staff have really turned the situation around. We were deeply impressed both by her understanding of the circumstances of the people with whom she had to deal and how she addressed us about them. Most of those present were either not working in the Prison Service, like myself, or they worked in male institutions.
	Imagine my feelings when I returned home from addressing a deanery synod about prison work to find a message saying that on 14 October, Brockhill prison was informed that it was to be re-roled as a male institution; that expertise—there are 200 staff working there, excluding education and health workers—was to be dispersed; and that the 167 prisoners would be dispersed. Brockhill is the only women's prison in the country that is full. All the others have spare places. I was filled with a sense of all that work going to waste, not the least of which would be the prison health centre which has cost the taxpayer £6 million to construct. It will almost certainly not be required anything like as much once the prison is re-roled. A prison inspection by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons and her team is about to go ahead, which will report long after the institution has actually ceased to exist.
	That represents a terribly serious waste, and in the context of the situation set out for us by the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, I have to say that I think that it is a very great shame. However, it is not because the Government wish women in prison particularly ill, or because the Prison Service does so. Rather, it is because the general pressure of overcrowding is leading to a situation in which decisions like this have to be taken, but which will result in increasing precisely the kind of distress referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. Women prisoners are to be relocated to Peterborough when their homes are in the West Midlands. Those on remand will have to make long daily journeys to court. If they are convicted and held in Peterborough, their families will find it almost impossible to keep up proper and regular contact.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, ended his remarks by stating that when we sentence a woman to prison, we are actually sentencing a whole family, and it is to that point that I direct my more general comments. Of course I know that the Minister, his colleagues and those in the Prison Service have a sense of compassion about women in this situation, but as a society we have not addressed the fact that a sentence of six months in prison for a 19 year-old woman is not the same as a six-month sentence for a 19 year-old man. It will almost certainly be completely different.
	The family connection of these young women is of particular importance in this respect. Without it, they are being deprived of precisely the influences, opportunities and possibilities which might help them to achieve a more stable life.
	The fact that women are incarcerated for shoplifting is an indication that we have not yet taken seriously what "prison as a last resort" means. We have not weighed up what is a proportionate punishment—because clearly that is disproportionate. Not only that but, as the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, implied, we are preparing the next generation also to become inhabitants of Her Majesty's prisons in due course.
	The Government need to ask what they can do to address the situation of women in prison and, in particular, they should do as much as they can to preserve the links with families.
	A further general aspect of the matter is that there is no doubt that we did live in a society where men, frankly, committed crime and women, frankly, were put in mental institutions. There are now no mental institutions, and that is a major reason why the women prison population has increased. If that is the case, and if we know, as we do, that a proportion of the women in prison are there for offences to do with drugs—often offences into which they have been drawn by male operatives, who are the much bigger fish that we fail to catch—surely an emphasis on treatment, on family links and on small units, in which people can be held in close proximity if they need to be in prison, should be the direction of government policy.
	I have the feeling that the Minister, his colleagues and the Prison Service would like that to be the case but, because of the context of overcrowding with which we live and the financial pressures which result on the Prison Service, these matters simply are not allowed to come to the top of the agenda. I hope that in his reply the Minister will indicate a willingness to put them far higher on the agenda so that the symptoms of women's suffering in prison can be addressed by looking more closely at the causes.

Lord Acton: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Gale on introducing this debate, the first one specifically on women prisoners that I can remember. I doubly congratulate her on receiving such an enthusiastic response from your Lordships that her Unstarred Question has, with a wave of the usual channels' magic wand, turned into a two-and-a-half hour debate.
	As all noble Lords have stressed, the position of women prisoners is dire and the contributing factors are legion. In mentioning a few, I make no apology for some repetition as the matter is so important. The number of women prisoners has trebled in a decade; 55 per cent of women released from prison in 1999 reoffended within two years; there were 14 suicides last year and a third of women prisoners repeatedly injured themselves; two-thirds of women in prison suffer mental ill-health; and 40 per cent are drug addicts.
	At the end of 2003, half of women prisoners were held more than 50 miles from their home town and a quarter more than 100 miles. Two thirds of women in prison are mothers and every year about 17,700 children are separated from their imprisoned mothers, a point stressed by the right reverend Prelate.
	I shall advocate only one innovation to improve matters. Justice for Women: the Need for Reform, published in 2000, was the report of the Committee on Women's Imprisonment for the Prison Reform Trust, so ably chaired by Professor Dorothy Wedderburn. Its primary recommendation was that,
	"A national women's justice board should be established immediately as a statutory commissioning body which would resemble in many respects the national Youth Justice Board".
	Professor Wedderburn envisaged that the board would oversee women's imprisonment and punishment in the community; it would establish local centres and develop programmes based in communities; it would ensure the efficient and humane management of women's prisons and the provision of suitable regimes. The board would be responsible for the satisfactory settlement and integration into the community of women prisoners and a reduction in reoffending. The location of the women's justice board within the criminal justice system would be parallel to that of the Youth Justice Board.
	In a speech to the Prison Reform Trust the following year, the Lord Chief Justice advocated the same approach. He said:
	"There should be a board responsible for women in the criminal justice system. Its responsibilities in relation to women should be similar to that of the Youth Justice Board. It should regard its primary responsibility to be to contain the growth of the women prison population".
	The introduction of a woman's justice board has on several occasions been put to Ministers in debates and Questions in your Lordships' House. They have invariably responded favourably; however, the Government have yet to establish the women's justice board. The Government now have an action plan for women in prison, but missing is the key ingredient of a board to take positive action and make that action a priority.
	The spending review published on 12 July stated:
	"Over the 2004 Spending Review period the Government will pilot radical new approaches to meet the specific needs of women offenders, to tackle the causes of crime and reoffending among this group and reduce the need for custody".
	The women's justice board should be set up as soon as possible to make sure that all that happens. It would have the necessary determination, experience and influence to put those plans into practice. When my noble friend the Minister reports to the Home Office on this debate, will he use his well known determination, expertise and influence to promote the speedy launching of a women's justice board?

Baroness Stern: My Lords, I warmly congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, who has done this House a service by initiating this debate. I thank her warmly for her well informed and deeply compassionate speech.
	I am grateful to earlier speakers who have set out the statistics and outlined the problems of women in prison. They have made it clear why, for those who have chosen to speak in this debate and for many others, this situation calls out for government action to remedy some gross injustices.
	Anyone who has read the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Judith McGlinchey will understand my use of the word "injustice". Noble Lords will know that, last year, the United Kingdom Government were found to be in violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which forbids inhuman and degrading treatment, because of the way in which Judith McGlinchey was treated in an English prison. She was sent to prison for four months for theft in December 2002, although the court was offered the choice of a probation order with drug treatment. She was a heroin addict; she died in January 2003, quite horribly, from conditions associated with withdrawal from heroin.
	I recommend the Minister to read the judgment if he has not already done so, because I am certain that after reading it he will ask why that woman was sent to prison—to a place of punishment—for four months, for theft, when she clearly needed care and treatment. I am sure he will ask that, as I have known for many years that he is a humane and very caring person.
	I hope that noble Lords saw an excellent TV programme on ITV called "Real Bad Girls". That programme was about a very small, slightly brain-damaged woman who was imprisoned for disruptive behaviour. It showed how the caring, professional and inspired staff at the prison she was in looked after and helped her. It was an example of a public service at its best. She was moved to another prison to be near her mother; three weeks later, she hanged herself. She was clearly not meant to be in a place of punishment—she needed a different sort of care.
	I give one more example: the case of a woman called Paige Tapp. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General has been in correspondence with me and with the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, about her case, and I am very grateful to him for that. Paige Tapp wanted to commit suicide by jumping off Beachy Head. The police stopped her many times. She was eventually charged with a very serious offence—making threats to kill—because she threatened the police woman who tried to stop her that she would take her over the cliff as well. She was imprisoned and killed herself in prison.
	I have given these case studies to show the House that the use of punishment is spreading more and more into territory that belongs to others. It is territory that belongs to the health services and the social services. It is not just bad policy that punishment should be used for health and welfare problems; clearly, it does not work—they are all dead. It is also deeply wrong, cruel and unjust. Perhaps this substitution of punishment for healthcare and social care accounts for our very high proportion of women in prison. Some rough calculations done this morning suggest that the England and Wales imprisonment rate for women is 8.5 per 100,000 of the general population whereas in France the rate is 3.6. We are more than double. So I would like to ask the Minister a number of questions.
	Experience round the world shows that it is very easy to keep people out of prison who should not be there if it is really decided that that is what we want to do. So I would like to ask, first, has the Minister visited the Time Out centre in Glasgow—a place where drug-addicted women are sent from the courts to be rehabilitated and where the treatment is the polar opposite of punishment; it is based on encouragement, mutual support and deep respect for each individual woman? Can we learn something from that?
	Secondly, will the Minister consider asking the Probation Service, which could do an excellent job in keeping sick women out of prison if it was liberated from some of the government targets, to ensure a specialist presence in court when such cases are being dealt with so that suitable alternatives can be offered?
	Thirdly, there are clearly questions about the decision to prosecute. Decisions are made which on the face of it seem to be extraordinary. I have spoken before in this House about a government initiative called, in what I would regard as an abuse of language, "closing the justice gap", which means that the agencies have a target of 1 million more prosecutions. I imagine that this would mean more prosecutions of those easy to prosecute: the mad; the sick; the easy to pick up. My fears seem to be borne out. Will the Minister consider looking again at the guidelines for prosecutors on pursuing those who are ill, brain-damaged or suicidal?
	Finally, I want to congratulate the Minister on handing prison healthcare over to the NHS—a reform that is much admired throughout Europe. Has the Minister considered that the remit of the Department of Health prison health service should be extended so that there is a role alongside the police when charging, the prosecution when prosecuting, and the court when sentencing to say, "This is a health problem, not a crime problem. We must deal with it another way"?
	I know that in his reply the Minister will tell us about the excellent initiatives being pursued in prison to make the situation there a little better. It is right that we should hear about those, but I hope that he will also address the questions that I have raised and tell us what the Government are doing to stop prison being used in the wrong way, for the wrong people, leading often to a very wrong outcome; that is, death.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I add my thanks and compliments to the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, for allowing us to debate this important matter.
	According to the well known saying, the punishment should fit the crime. I believe that it should also fit the offender and the needs of society. Fortunately, the best thing for both the offender and society is that the offender should not offend again. If we are to protect society from our appalling reoffending rate, we should tailor the penalties to the nature of the offenders and the reasons behind their offending behaviour. That is not best done in prison in the cases of most women. There is a lot of evidence that the effect of imprisonment is far greater on them than on men. Although in most walks of life I am passionately in favour of women being treated exactly the same as men, we cannot ignore the massive body of evidence that shows that removing liberty from a woman has a much more harmful effect than removing it from a man. If she cares for children or elderly parents, other innocent people suffer as well.
	What is that evidence? We have heard today that female suicides in custody are rising. Of course, there would be more if it were not for the intervention of the staff. I read a report recently that stated that staff in Holloway cut down five prisoners per night, and that one inmate tried six times in a single night to commit suicide. Apart from the utter despair that leads a woman to feel that life is no longer worth living, we have to ask ourselves how the situation affects staff and other prisoners. It must be unutterably miserable for them, too.
	In addition, the extraordinary number of cases of self-harm indicates the very high levels of stress and mental health problems among women prisoners. In 2003, 30 per cent of female prisoners harmed themselves. It is particularly prevalent among young girls, yet 17 year-olds are still kept in adult prisons. Last year, we welcomed the Home Secretary's announcement that girls aged 15 and 16 would no longer be put in prison but placed in local authority care—although I have to say that the secure training centres to which they go are really just small prisons. However, the Home Secretary also said that, in the longer term, young women aged 17 would also be placed outside Prison Service custody. In the light of that promise, I deplore his plans to build five "prisons within prisons" for girls aged 17, reneging on promises to find alternative ways to deal with that age group.
	Prison is not an appropriate place for girls under the age of 18. They are essentially adult institutions and will never be able to provide a suitable environment or a suitably tailored regime for teenage girls. Many of the girls in prison are vulnerable and damaged. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons carried out an unannounced inspection of Eastwood Park in October 2001. Inspectors met all 12 girls under the age of 18 and noted:
	"It was impossible not to be struck by the profound personality disturbance and mental health problems that many presented and by the inappropriateness of prison, or indeed any other custodial placement for them".
	Research published by the Howard League in 2001 into repetitive self-harm by women and girls in prisons found that there had been 240 recorded incidents of deliberate self-harm by young women under the age of 21, and that many incidents went unrecorded. The researcher interviewed Isobel, aged 17, who was serving her first prison sentence. The trigger to her self-harm was bullying in the prison itself. She often used cutting and ligatures. She told the researcher that she felt punished by staff because they did not talk to her when she harmed herself, but just patched her up. She had been put into strip conditions, a situation not conducive to preventing her doing it again.
	Why do women attempt suicide and self-harm? As we heard, the number of female prisoners is rising, yet the small number of female prisons means that they are more likely than men to be imprisoned far from their families. They are kept in their cells for long hours, with plenty of time to brood and to miss their children. Let us think about them for a moment. On Mothers' Day this year more than 6,000 children under 16 years old were separated from their mothers in prison. We have heard that two-thirds of women prisoners are mothers and many are single mothers. That means that the children have to go to the wider family or into care while the mother is in prison.
	Throughout 2002, 22,000 children were affected by the imprisonment of their mother. The figures will be higher for 2003 and 2004 as the number of women sent to prison has continued to increase. Very young babies are separated from imprisoned mothers, because the bureaucratic system for admission to mother and baby units takes too long for most women who serve short sentences. For women with a child under 18 months, only five mother and baby units are available. Each case for admission is assessed on an individual basis. The intention is for the decision to be made in the best interest of the child. But if the places are full, or the baby is more than 18 months old, it is separated and in practice it is the women serving longer sentences who get the places, as they get to know how to work the system. Anyone who already has a baby is extremely unlikely to be able to take it into prison with her.
	Can the Minister say how many women are given places or refused places for young babies each year? Do the Government have any research about courts' attitudes? The Howard League for Penal Reform believes that if a court is considering custody, remand or sentence, the baby should be represented in court as a party to the decision as it affects him or her. Do the Government have any plans to introduce that? Separation from the mother is a serious matter for any baby and its human rights should be represented.
	The majority of female prisoners are vulnerable women and many have mental health or drug problems. Most have never received a custodial sentence before. They do not know how to cope with prison. But do we really need to put women in prison at all? To those who claim that prison is for the protection of the public, I would point out that three-quarters of female prisoners are in for minor or non-violent offences. As the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, said, fewer than one in 10 face charges for violent offences. But in 2002 more women were sent to prison for shoplifting than for any other crime. That seems ridiculous.
	Prison is a very blunt instrument to deal with the complex reasons for female offending and we need a more sophisticated, more subtle and more complex response to it in the 21st century. Clearly prisons cannot keep women safe. They are killing themselves. What do the Government plan to do about the rising number of suicides and attempted suicides in custody? We need much more than sticking plaster solutions such as modifications to cells to remove ligature points or appointing suicide prevention co-ordinators. We need a thorough rethink about what sentencing is for and an overhaul of sentencing practice for women.
	Many reports claim that many women prisoners do not obtain the drug treatment or mental healthcare that they need. We have heard some examples of that. Neither do they get the education that they need. Prison does not work for them and it is time that this society recognised that fact. Banging up a vulnerable person does nothing for the victims of crime either. I have recently become one of those victims of crime, having been subjected to a burglary. What does do something for all the other victims of crime is non-custodial sentences where something positive is done to address the causes of that offending. That is what we hope to hear from the Minister in his reply.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lady Gale on securing this debate. It covers an important issue and she has raised significant questions, not just for the Government, but for society as a whole, as have, and no doubt will, other noble Lords.
	I wish to concentrate on the issue of women in prison who misuse drugs—mentioned by other noble Lords. In doing so, I should declare an interest as the chair of the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse that was set up as a special health authority to develop more, better and fairer treatment, working with both the health and criminal justice systems.
	Drug treatment should be therapeutic, not punitive, and it must be recognised as such. With primary care trusts taking over responsibility for health in prisons, we surely have an opportunity on a nation-wide basis to improve and share practice which will be effective. Models of Care, which is a service framework for drug treatment, provides clear guidance on assessing drug users, finding appropriate treatment for them and ensuring they have support to move on to a life without a damaging drug habit. This pathway of care should be available for every prisoner who has a drug problem, men as well as women.
	I visit different parts of the country to look at programmes which should enable that to happen. An issue for drug users and those in recovery is dignity. Many say, "I want my dignity back". Those who are in recovery and getting to grips with their drug habit say, "I'm getting my dignity back". Dignity is important both in prison and in building a life outside. Dignity must be enhanced and not destroyed.
	One issue which arises in conversation with stakeholders in health and criminal justice systems is how best to help those in prison with drug problems—men and women. A key function of prison is, or should be, rehabilitation. Those prisoners who use drugs are more complex cases. Nearly half the women in prison are there for drug offences: possession, intent to supply and trafficking. A large percentage have committed acquisitive crimes to support their drug use. Many have problems of alcohol misuse and mental health and sexual abuse. The increase in the numbers of people who go to prison for drug offences has contributed to the increase in the prison population during the past 10 years.
	Would the Minister agree that treating drug misuse among offenders has to be improved if we are to avoid the cycle of offending, going to prison, being released and then reoffending? Places for those who require treatment are increasing, but those who are released from imprisonment for offences involving drugs need to have support while in prison and then be connected to support outside prison to diminish the likelihood of reoffending and to increase the likelihood of improving general well-being.
	A recent Drugscope report expressed concern about the number of offenders who are remanded in custody while awaiting trials for drug offences. Very few of them were a potential threat to the public. Only one in five was subsequently found to be guilty in court. Fewer than half received a custodial sentence. Remand prisoners will generally not have access to the drug treatment programmes which are available to sentenced prisoners.
	The new Criminal Justice Act will ensure that the various kinds of community sentencing for adults, such as drug treatment and testing orders, will be replaced with a single community order, to which a range of requirements can be attached. Those will include drug treatment and testing. Similar proposals for the youth justice system are contained in the paper, Every Child Matters. We shall need to watch how those measures work in practice. Quality and consistency will need to be monitored.
	I turn briefly to the issue of drugs in prison. There are many worrying examples. In a recent parliamentary debate, an example was given of a young woman in prison who witnessed girls of a similar age using hard drugs. She learnt a great deal about drugs, about dealing and about other crimes while in prison. The situation seems to be improving and the Prison Service reports a halving of the number of prisoners who tested positive for drugs between 1997 and 2001. However, many prisoners are still concerned about drug use in prison. Many users may avoid detection and some may switch drugs; for example, from cannabis to heroin.
	Given those complexities, we need to develop imaginative programmes to enable people in prison to deal with their drug habit. We need to improve generally on family involvement for prisoners and we need programmes to persuade prisoners that life outside has something to offer other than drugs. Housing, education and employment are all essential in improving the chances of a prisoner being released with the prospect of rehabilitation, especially those who have drug problems.
	Styal Prison for women, just outside Manchester, has developed a treatment programme which involves the prescription of methadone as a support to prisoners, rather than simply a cold detoxification, which, in short sentences, is highly unlikely to work and may result in tragedies, such as those related so powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern. Such prescribing is a realistic approach and could be applied to prisons other than just those for women.
	Many voluntary sector organisations are offering support to prisoners and their families. Perhaps I may speak about just one. Adfam, which supports prisoners and their families, has a Road to Release programme. At Holloway Prison, the project is based in the visitors' centre. It offers support options aimed at helping families come to terms with, and move on from, difficulties associated with drug use. There is work with individuals and groups, and information and advice. Resettlement issues are discussed, and counselling and education in the form of workshops and a support group are supplied. There are also leaflets and a telephone and postal helping service.
	People in prison are vulnerable. The drug strategy of 2002 refers to drug misusing offenders and those leaving prison, and to the measures of which I spoke earlier, such as throughcare systems. On communities, the strategy states that partnerships should work together to help those who are leaving prison and those suffering from drug misuse problems. There is clear evidence to show that such programmes work, and they provide a good return on investment from both a social and an economic point of view.
	I hope that the Minister will agree that tackling drug offences positively, planning programmes for those who have committed drug-related offences and improving prison health generally should be high priorities.

Lord Rosser: My Lords, I add my congratulations to those already expressed to my noble friend Lady Gale on securing and initiating this debate on an issue that has become the subject of much comment. I declare an interest as a non-executive member of the new National Offender Management Board and as chair of the Prison Service Audit Committee. I appreciate that I shall be reiterating many of the figures that have already been given to your Lordships, but I must ask for their indulgence on that score.
	Just under a week ago, there were 4,376 female prisoners out of a prison population in England and Wales of 74,857—or just under 6 per cent. As has already been said, that figure of 4,376 is not far short of a threefold increase since 1993, but it is some 300 less than the highest figure for women prisoners reached in May this year and 2 per cent less than the number of female prisoners on the equivalent day last year. But whether the slight fall in recent months in the female prison population is the start of a welcome trend remains to be seen.
	The increase in the number of women prisoners has occurred because of the increase in the number of women given custodial sentences for drugs offences from 308 in 1993 to 1,342 in 2003 and the increase in the number of women sent to prison on remand from 670 in 1993 to 1,072 in 2003. There also appears to have been heavier sentencing for some offences without any apparent increase in the seriousness of offending. The proportion of women aged 21 and over who were sentenced to immediate imprisonment at Crown Court is estimated to have risen by a half between 1994 and 2002.
	The considerable increase in the number of women prisoners over a relatively short period of time has created accommodation problems for the Prison Service. They are problems that could not have been readily foreseen as it is the courts and not the Prison Service which have been making the decisions that have resulted in the near threefold increase in the number of women prisoners—an increase which, as has already been pointed out, is way in excess of the percentage increase in the prison population as a whole. Steps are being taken to seek to address the situation; for example, a new prison near Heathrow and a new prison near Peterborough, which will include a women's unit.
	However the issues surrounding the significant increase in the number of women prisoners are not simply about accommodation and prison places. Women have a different profile from men in the criminal justice system. They commit less crime, and their offences are generally less serious than those committed by men. By far the most frequent offences for which adult women were received into custody in 2003 were theft and handling, followed some considerable way behind by drug offences. Women prisoners are more likely than men to be experiencing imprisonment for the first time and are less likely to reoffend.
	As has already been said, women prisoners are more likely to self-harm than men; have a higher level of mental healthcare needs than men; are more likely than men to have received psychiatric treatment prior to imprisonment; and have a higher rate of personality disorders.
	Just over half of women prisoners have a child under 16 and nearly one-third have a child under five. That in itself is likely to impose additional pressure on the women in prison, who are concerned about the care of their children, in addition to the impact on themselves and their children of the separation during the period of imprisonment. As has been said, that position is not helped by the fact that as there are far fewer prisons that accommodate women than men, and the possibility of difficult, costly and lengthy journeys to make prison visits is that much greater.
	One issue of particular concern is self-harm. The number of incidents of self-harm involving women prisoners reported for 2003 was 7,408; 30 per cent of females held in custody in 2003 were reported to have self-harmed compared with 6 per cent of males. While females account for only 6 per cent of the prison population, they accounted for a quarter of all individuals who self-harmed and nearly half of all reported self-harm incidents which totalled just over 16,000 for male and female prisoners. The female rate of self-harm incidence was 13 times higher than the male rate of self-harm.
	It has been said that in the calendar year 2003, of the 94 apparently self-inflicted deaths of prisoners in England and Wales, 14 involved women prisoners. In 2004 to date, of the 87 deaths, 13 have been of women prisoners. Indeed, in 2003, 204 reported incidents of self-harm were so serious that the prisoner involved required resuscitation; 133 prisoners were resuscitated, nearly half of whom were women; and of those resuscitated, 23 were revived on more than one occasion. Of those 23 revived on more than one occasion, almost all were women.
	The increase in the number of apparently self-inflicted deaths among women prisoners since the mid-1990s is, of course, in part explained by the increase in the female prison population. However, it is also attributable to the large number of women in prison with a combination of factors that raise their risk of suicide, chiefly related to mental health, drugs and drink, troubled relationships and life experiences and previous histories of self-harm or suicide attempts. It has already been stated, that 44 per cent of women on remand, compared with 27 per cent of men on remand, report having attempted suicide in their life time, yet in the community as a whole, suicides among men far outnumber those among women.
	The Prison Service has been and is developing suicide prevention strategies, especially for women prisoners. I am sure that those are issues that the Minister will comment on, but reasons of time prevent me going into them. However, I do not believe that the magnitude of the issues that the Prison Service and its staff have to address is always fully understood and comprehended, or what the situation would be like without the good work that they do.
	I do not wish to suggest that the Prison Service is perfect. No one who has read the report from the CRE could believe that, but I do not believe that their many achievements receive the recognition and credit that they merit.
	Of course, a very fair and legitimate question to ask is whether the position of women in prison could not and should not be improved. It is also legitimate to ask whether so many women should be in prison in the first place, particularly in the light of the recent substantial increase in numbers and the overall profile of women prisoners, which is so very different from that for men.
	If the answer is that society, like the tabloid newspapers, has no problems or concerns over the recent substantial increase in the number of women prisoners, the Prison Service, working with the health service, will have to be equipped to provide the type of intensive, specialist and high-level care needed to address the conditions and problems of what has been a fast expanding section of the prison population, which differs from the male population by a good deal more than simply gender.
	However, simply continuing to lock up more and more women in the light of the information we have about the profile of so many women prisoners seems like avoiding the real issues, exacerbating the problems and leaving the Prison Service to carry out a role it is not properly equipped to do and was not intended to do.
	The expectation must be, surely, that the move to the National Offender Management Service will deliver clear instead of fragmented lines of responsibility for managing women offenders and a better range of more appropriate and relevant non-custodial options, consistently applied irrespective of area, available to both sentencers and those who implement sentences, than we appear to have at the moment for dealing with women offenders and reducing their re-offending.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. I wish to follow the theme he established in his speech. Before doing so, I join in commending the Government for their decision to switch medical care in the Prison Service to the National Health Service.
	Some years ago I visited Feltham young offenders' institution and its health department. Two years after switching to the National Health Service, the department reported a significant reduction in the level of self-harm in the young people it worked with. Clearly, that is a step forward.
	In the Fawcett report, which has been referred to—and I say this as a note to what has already been said—there is a recommendation that:
	"There is an urgent need to assess the viability of local custodial units".
	That chimes with much of what has been said previously. I hope that the women's justice board proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Acton, will be introduced—perhaps that institution could consider proposals such as this—and that NOMS will prove to be effective in this sort of new thinking.
	The theme I should like to concentrate on is the support of prison officers and a recognition for the difficulty of their work. The chairman and secretary of the Prison Officers' Association recently visited the Houses of Parliament to discuss the national offender management scheme. The chairman said that he worked with men and women who are career criminals, but that most people he worked with are the sort of people we have been hearing about—disadvantaged, often inadequate, in very poor circumstances and with poor histories. He was asked, "What support do your prison officers receive in dealing with the mental health issues of the clients they work with?". He replied, "Nothing".
	I spoke later to the secretary of the Prison Officers' Association, who had been a psychiatric nurse before entering the Prison Service. He talked about the importance of relationships between prison officers and their clients—and I am talking about the general population, but it is very relevant to the female population. It reminded me of other prison officers who have talked about young people coming into prison and for the first time experiencing something like a father figure in their prison officer.
	We have discussed self-harm. I worked in a hostel and dealt with a young person who self-harmed. It is an immensely distressing experience, not only for the people working with these young people but also for the clients in the hostel at the time. Surely, we must do more in those circumstances about recognising the caring role. I recognise that we have to be realistic about it. There is a heavy weight of care involved in working with the prison population and with women in prison.
	There is an interesting parallel with other areas with which I am familiar, such as residential care with children. Until 1998, 70 to 80 per cent of the residential childcare workforce had no relevant qualification to do the work that they did. Prison officers receive training; but I understand that our prison officer training is about the shortest in western Europe. We also heard from prison officers that continued professional development, the add-on training that they are supposed to receive, is very much inhibited by the fact that they are dealing with such a crisis managing the rising number of prisoners.
	So we see the problem of neglecting carers. We see the problem of neglecting those working in children's homes. We see the problem of neglecting foster carers and we see the problem of neglecting parents who are bringing up children on their own. We see the problem of undervaluing care of children and adults. We know that 50 per cent of women in prison have personality disorders and we know that personality disorders are strongly linked to a poor parenting experience. Prison could be one part of beginning to alleviate such problems. If individuals in prison, women or men, can have a decent relationship with a decent prison officer during their time in prison, that can be a step towards breaking out of that generational problem of neglect and of never experiencing a carer who provides for them.
	Elsewhere, I have witnessed support being provided for carers by introducing a psychiatrist, psychologist or child psychotherapist into a children's home to work with the whole staff group on a regular basis in a sort of consultancy role, where they will talk about individual children and how the team is working together. The President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Dr Michael Shooter, was recently discussing that and saying that that is what he used to do with children's homes but, regrettably, it is so difficult to do now because of the shortage of psychiatrists and because consultants do not want to leave their consulting room.
	That might be very relevant to the Prison Service, especially where it works with women, when there are concerns about self-harm and suicide. If prison officers had the opportunity of support consultancy with a psychiatrist from time to time, they would be supported in the stress that that work carries with it and would learn better how to refer people who are seriously mentally ill to proper mental health services. As I said, their relationship with their clients would be greatly improved.
	The Fawcett report also referred to sexism within the Prison Service: sexism against female prison officers. Male prison officers would sit and read pornography while women prison officers were around and there was poor treatment of female prison officers by some male officers. There are also reports of how women in prison were referred to as girls by prison officers. There are many factors behind that sort of behaviour, but I suggest that one is the brutalisation that comes about when one is working in an environment where there is such distress and one receives little support to deal with it.
	I hope that we can better recognise the care that prison officers are obliged to supply to the people for whom they provide. I hope that we can do more to prevent young people and young girls entering prison. Much effort is today going into the Government's anti-social behaviour programme. I wish that a similar amount of attention could be given to the need to provide better youth services. I see that my time is up. It is not a question just of investing money, it is also about political commitment. Youth services are a local government responsibility and if the Government really want them to improve, they must push hard on all sides. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, I join everybody who has spoken so far in congratulating my noble friend Lady Gale on introducing what was to have been a short debate. We should also congratulate the usual channels on abandoning the habits of a lifetime and allowing more time for a debate. They have allowed a most extraordinary range of contributions thus far, and I am sure that there are more still to come.
	It would be very hard for anybody listening to the debate so far not to be moved, shaken and upset by the weight of evidence that has been put before us from a variety of sources and in the most extraordinarily authoritative terms. I rise with very great humility in this distinguished company to make a very short contribution.
	Noble Lords will be aware that over the past couple of decades there has been a growing relationship between prisons and professional arts practitioners of all kinds. Some very interesting work has been created, including remarkable theatre and opera productions—such as those of Pimlico Opera—inside prisons, involving mixed casts of professional performers and prisoners.
	I salute all those who have been at the forefront of these initiatives, but today I should like to single out the work of Clean Break Theatre Company, which is celebrating its 25th anniversary this year. I congratulate the company on reaching this milestone, although it makes me feel incredibly old, as I remember it in its very early days. I am very grateful to the current Clean Break team for providing me with excellent briefing for this debate.
	Clean Break was founded in 1979 by two women prisoners at Askham Grange prison. It is the only theatre company in the UK for women who are or have been in contact with the criminal justice system. It has four main aims: to expand the skills, education and employment opportunities of women prisoners, ex-prisoners and ex-offenders; to produce high quality original theatre to provide a powerful and unique voice for such women; to educate the public on the issues surrounding women and crime; and to encourage access to the arts and arts education for individuals who would not normally have such access.
	It achieves these aims by providing opportunities for women offenders and ex-offenders to develop skills, confidence and creativity and a chance to rebuild their lives through a rehabilitative programme of professional support and education and also by commissioning new writing and mounting professional productions in order to raise awareness of issues relating to women and crime.
	Clean Break has just completed a tour of its latest production, which is called "Compact Failure" and is set in a women's prison, to HMP Cookham Wood and HMP Send. Women from HMP Askham Grange were also able to see the play at York Theatre Royal.
	Clean Break reports that reactions from women prisoners who have seen the production have been enormously positive. Their own experiences are acknowledged in the play, and they are supported, through a participatory workshop, to examine for themselves issues in their own lives through the lives of the characters. Opportunities such as this can be life-changing, since they provide a chance for women to explore their own experience in a creative, supportive environment. They also act as a vital contact point for women who may consider studying with Clean Break when they are released.
	The company regularly undertakes outreach work in prisons across the south-east, encouraging women to access education and training on release. Every year, more than 70 women take advantage of Clean Break's training programme at its north London base; many of them gain qualifications in the arts and progress to higher education, employment, work placements, further training or volunteering. Those are all key factors in reducing the risk of reoffending. Two recent graduates of a major London drama school began their journey into higher education by completing access courses with Clean Break following initial contact at HMP Send.
	The company has also been involved in piloting one of the first drama projects designed to meet literacy objectives in prisons. Some 94 per cent of the women participating in the project gained a level 2 literacy qualification. In addition, the company is involved in a national research project called REACTT, designed to measure the impact on offending behaviour of contact with the arts. Good information on this issue is hard to collect as long-term tracking of ex-offenders is difficult, but this research should provide some important new data to support the clear anecdotal evidence of benefit.
	Other noble Lords have spoken eloquently of the conditions in which women are held in our prisons and of the kinds of distress they can experience while they are there. One of the biggest problems many of them face, however, is negotiating the transition from prison back into the community. Regrettably, there appears to be insufficient support available to them when that moment comes. As we have heard from many other noble Lords, they are often imprisoned far from their own homes and communities, making resettlement even more difficult, and have suffered a deterioration in their mental health, self-esteem and confidence as a result of their imprisonment, which makes moving on from prison very frightening. Clean Break is the only service of its kind available in the United Kingdom, but its resources are stretched and it is unable to meet the needs of all the women who could benefit from its programmes. Women who are not released into the London area, for instance, are especially ill provided for.
	I am sure that the Minister would agree with me that the work done by Clean Break and other organisations using the arts to address the needs of the prison population is of immense value, bringing potentially transformative opportunities to women whose lives are in crisis. When he comes to reply, could he say whether the Government have any plans to increase the level of resource available for this kind of work? There is great need for more of it.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I add my thanks to my noble friend Lady Gale for instigating this debate. Knowing how tenacious she is when she cares about an issue, as she does about women in prison, I was not surprised to find that we have more time for the debate. I am delighted about that.
	I congratulate the Government on some of the initiatives they have taken. Noble Lords have mentioned some of the initiatives, which include a new range of custodial sentences, elements of which are supervision in the community; a more integrated approach to women's offending; the Department of Health and the Home Office working together, to which I shall briefly return later; and the Women's Offending Reduction Programme, the action plan for which was launched in March 2004 and the aim of which is to reduce the number of women offenders. Those are good examples of the Government's recognition of the special problems that women face and their willingness to tackle them. As always, however, there is always much more to do.
	Earlier this year, with my noble friend Lady Gale, I visited Holloway Prison. I recognised a great improvement since my previous visit some eight to 10 years before. In particular, the reception area was bright and cheerful. The visitors centre—which is run by a charity, the Prisoners' Wives and Families Society—has a snack bar, toilets, baby changing facilities and a children's play area. There is also a children's play area in the visits room. That was a far cry from my previous visit. Flowers, magazines and newspapers can be ordered for women prisoners through approved shops. The mothers and babies unit was brighter and obviously caring staff were helping the mothers and the play group was in action. The atmosphere was certainly much lighter and more positive than I remembered.
	Seeing babies behind bars, however, is still a chilling phenomenon, and a worrying factor remains: there appears to be no comprehensive policy on women and children in prisons. For example, the ages of the children who can remain with their mothers in prison is not uniform throughout women's prisons. Other problems have been highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley.
	The difficulties faced by the families of prisoners was brought home to me in stark detail earlier this year. Like others who have spoken, I am a member of the All-Party Group on Penal Affairs, and I attended a meeting to hear the sad and deeply emotional story of one family affected by the mother's imprisonment. The woman had embezzled money, admitted it and was convicted. The family recognised that she would be imprisoned and vowed to support her throughout and to keep the family unit intact. She had a young son whom the father looked after during her imprisonment. So far, so good—or as good as it could be in the circumstances. But what next?
	The mother was moved from prison to prison, often at very short notice; the family was not told, or told only when they arrived at the prison they thought she was in. Like many women—indeed, 25 per cent—she was moved to prisons 100 miles from her home. When her husband and son located her and visited, their visits were curtailed because of bureaucracy. Often, the long-awaited visit of one hour each fortnight was cut to 30 to 40 minutes. Such brief visits often took over five hours for each round trip. The cost of such treatment to the family, both financially and emotionally, was obviously great. The fact that that husband could tell us, strangers, of that treatment with quiet dignity and without bitterness and recrimination—outwardly, certainly—moved me deeply. Surely there must be a better system.
	I want to raise specific issues on which the Minister might be able to comment. On the previous occasion when I spoke on the issue, I welcomed the closer working relationships instigated by the Government last year between the Prison Service and the NHS, and looked forward to hearing how it was working. Some of us had been pressing for it for a long time. Like other noble Lords, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, I believe that this is the way forward.
	However, I have a question on one element of the initiative. According to the Prison Officers' Association, the initiative is not working as it should. As overcrowding continues, the POA maintains that healthcare is getting worse, suicides are increasing and untrained operational support-grade staff are being employed as what they describe as "suicide watchers" instead of trained prison staff, who may have the expertise to assist a prisoner. The Prison Officers' Association also believes that there is a lack of clear direction from the joint Prison Service/Department of Health unit. My noble friend Lord Rosser outlined the needs in that area most powerfully. Knowing that women are more likely to self-harm and more likely to depend on medicinal care than men, that worries me greatly. I hope that my noble friend can set my mind at rest on where our healthcare in prisons is going.
	A second special issue is women who have not been sentenced but who are on remand. Women on remand are entitled to daily visits. But, again, bureaucracy bites; institutional factors step in. They suffer constant moves, and obviously that mitigates against family contacts and exacerbates an already stressful and often disorientating situation. I know quite well of one instance where remand prisoners have been sent to a prison in Suffolk from as far away as Shrewsbury and Bournemouth. Is that really necessary?
	Lastly, I want to draw attention to women in Northern Ireland. I wish to highlight an article that appeared on 19 October in the Belfast Telegraph about a public inquiry into,
	"'endemic failures' in the imprisonment of women in Northern Ireland".
	It referred to a report written by Professor Phil Scraton, of the Institute of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Queen's University, and Dr Linda Moore, an investigations worker with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. It described what were said to be,
	"appalling conditions faced by women and girls . . . imprisoned at Mourne House in the high-security Maghaberry prison".
	The findings included failure by the Prison Service to implement recommendations made by the Prisons Inspectorate in 2002, inappropriate use of the punishment block for suicidal and self-harming women and girls, and allegations of bullying of women with mental health problems. I understand that the recommendations from the report are being studied by Peter Russell, the director-general of prisons in Northern Ireland. He has already recognised that,
	"all was not well in Mourne House".
	I hope that the director-general in Northern Ireland will move quickly to establish what is needed to rectify the situation, which appears to have been ongoing.
	I recognise that difficulties surrounding women in prison cannot be solved overnight. I also recognise that the Government are genuinely trying to improve matters. So I shall end optimistically, with a quote from the Social Exchange Unit report:
	"The problems in prisoners' lives are often highly complicated and inter-related. They require a co-ordinated multi-agency response, within prison, across the crucial transitions between community and custody, and sustained long after release".
	I sincerely hope that these are not just words on paper, but that they develop into actions.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, on her good fortune in securing a full debate on this urgent subject. I intervene to make one brief point. If it were accepted, it would greatly benefit women and their children—some 22,000 children, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said.
	I understand that, in the Netherlands, women with responsibility for children who receive a prison sentence are allowed—encouraged, indeed—to return home before starting their term of imprisonment. The purpose of that respite of a few working days is to enable them to make the best possible arrangements for the care of their children during their absence from home. That was the situation in the Netherlands only a few years ago, and I imagine that it continues.
	The Dutch practice seems eminently sensible. It allows the mother to say, "Good-bye" and avoids her abrupt disappearance, which can be so harmful to her children. It must help the well-being and mental health of all the children in question. In some cases, it may prevent their having to be taken into care at great expense, simply because no proper arrangements have been made. Could the Minister say whether British courts already have discretion to grant the kind of respite that I suggest? If they do, will the Government advise the courts to make full use of that discretion?
	I have raised these points in the past without success. I urge the Government to give them full consideration and to discover what has been the experience in other states. Best practice should surely prevail throughout the whole European Union.

Lord Judd: My Lords, I beg the indulgence of the House for speaking in the gap. It was only at a very late hour this morning that I discovered that I could be present in the House after all.
	I was keen to participate for two reasons. The first is my respect for my noble friend Lady Gale. It has been strengthened by her contribution today. I have had the opportunity to talk to her privately, and I know that it is a deep, ongoing commitment of hers. The whole House should be grateful for the way in which she has given us an opportunity to debate the subject.
	The second reason is that I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. At the moment, it is preparing a report on suicides in prison and in custody. It would be wrong of me to give any indication of our conclusions, but it would also be wrong to miss the opportunity to share some of the impressions that I have formed during the work that we have done. I expected that work to be disturbing: I have found it even more disturbing than I had feared.
	It is not an issue limited to women prisoners—although it is particularly acute, I think, for them—but I frequently ask myself how many of the people whom I see should be in prison at all. The conclusion that I have reached is that very few should be. They are in prison simply because of the failure of our society to provide what we should provide for women in great need and distress.
	One of things that greatly impressed me during our work was what I heard from prison staff and prison officers. We should emphasise that many in the Prison Service do outstanding work. We would betray them, if we did not take seriously their anxieties. They frequently tell people such as myself that they do not believe that the people whom they are looking after should be in prison and that they are expected to do it on behalf of society because of society's failure to make proper provision for what is necessary.
	Prison staff tell us that the women who are there are frequently in a mess. They have desperate confusion in their lives. It is as a result of the mess in which they find themselves that they end up incarcerated in that way. Prison staff will also tell us countless examples of abuse. They say that sometimes the one good thing about those women being in prison is that while they are there they are safe. But frequently they fear that on leaving prison they will be subjected once again to the abuse that has aggravated their situations.
	I have only one more minute in which to finish. One prison officer made a particularly telling remark. I asked him, "When I go back to my political responsibilities, what, above all, do you think I should concentrate upon"? He said, "Training". I said, "But there is more training now". He said, "The paradox is the more training we get, the more we understand how we haven't got the training we need to be doing the work that we are doing".
	Therefore, I suggest that the logic of what the Government are doing in supporting more training only emphasises the need for still more. In that work, one group of people whom we should also applaud—an initiative that has tremendous significance—are those prisoners known as "listeners" who have been trained by Samaritans and others to do excellent frontline work in terms of providing the sort of care that is needed. But the overriding question that we should all be concerned about is: what is our responsibility for a system in which women are in a place where they should never be simply because we fail as a society to provide what is necessary?

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, for initiating this debate, which relates to those women who represent some of the most damaged and vulnerable members of our society to whom we should have a particular duty of care. I am so glad therefore that it has become possible to debate the issue properly. It has implications for the very nature of our society, how we deal with and care for our weakest members and also what kind of society we are inadvertently laying in store for ourselves in the future.
	We have heard from right across the House today the litany of the extent of the colossal human damage that women in prison represent. There has been a remarkable consensus. If I make some repetitions, I hope that noble Lords will bear with me. Even by comparison with the male prison population—let alone the population at large—that litany encompasses, in a disproportionate way, degrees of mental illness and psychosis, drug addiction and use, self harm and suicide, domestic violence and sexual abuse, running away as a child and leaving school well before 16 years old, lacking any qualifications, being in local authority care, homelessness before or after prison and as we know, crucially importantly, separation from their children, most of whom then have to leave the family home in order to be with other carers.
	Sometimes it is easy to forget the scale of human misery in the welter of statistics that we have heard and that are so important. But one cannot measure misery. These really are, in that wonderful phrase, people who are "acquainted with grief".
	That truly terrible litany raises the fundamental question of whether incarceration in prison is in any way appropriate as a response to women's offending as a proportionate punishment, if that is what the Government want, as a means of deterrence, let alone to effect reparation or properly address any of that damage. We should ask whether the prison services, heroic though much of their work is, should be asked to field and manage such people. Just the other day, one governor told me that the women in her care are sentenced and come to her more on the basis of need than of risk—the very point that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has just made.
	The basic reality, of course, is that more women are imprisoned for shoplifting than for any other offence, while under 10 per cent have committed offences of violence against the person. These are not in the main people from whom we have to be protected, and yet the figures for incarceration are rising inexorably.
	It is to be regretted that the separate management of women's prisons has been moved back under the control of area managers, which means that the specific needs of women inevitably receive less attention, and we know of inconsistencies in regime and management between prisons in different areas. Reference has also been made to the suggestion that there should be a women's justice board along the lines of the Youth Justice Board, which would give this issue a proper focus. I would be grateful to know what are the Minister's plans in this area.
	But the bigger question for the Government is this: should they not consider as a matter of priority a different approach to female offenders whose profiles, problems and indeed punishments clearly demand a rethink? Is prison appropriate? As the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, asked: is punishment appropriate? I would suggest that the evidence is overwhelming that for the vast majority of women, prison is simply inappropriate and that the Government should consider, inter alia, developing gender-specific, community-based programmes with local supervision, support and rehabilitation. The programmes established in Glasgow and Worcester are good examples. Here I must declare an interest as this is one of the recommendations of the strategic, grant-making initiative called "Rethinking Crime and Punishment", which I have chaired for the past four years and which has government support.
	I note that, in the Government's Women's Offending Reduction Programme action plan of March 2004, there are aims to,
	"pursue alternatives to custodial sentences for women".
	I do hope that the Minister can confirm that this is going ahead and that he can give us chapter and verse on how the Government plan to do this, and in what time-frame.
	My second overarching point is that the impact on families, in particular children, of incarceration is incalculable, but must be taken into account. Of the different statistics from which noble Lords have quoted, I have today chosen to cite the fact that 17,700 children are affected each year by their mother being in prison. The figure rises to something in the order of 125,000 when fathers are included. At any one time, two-thirds of women prisoners have dependent children under the age of 18. Such separation is hugely damaging to both mother and child. It inevitably affects the mother's ability to be a good parent. Children's experience of parenting is undermined and it has implications for their own parenting in the future.
	Having myself set up the first visitor centre some 30 years ago, I have seen at first hand the ripples of distress caused to families and their children, 30 per cent of whom now suffer from significant mental health problems. I repeat: 30 per cent of these children have mental health problems. They also experience difficulties at school in the form of bullying, being ostracised and, for the duration of the prison sentence, are unlikely even to be able to stay in their own homes. On top of that, as we have heard, the mother is often imprisoned miles away from home.
	Visitor centres can at least provide some succour and support when they are properly manned and managed. I should like to put the record straight on a point. On 14 October I said in your Lordships' House that the newest women's prison, Bronzefield, did not have a centre. It does in fact have an unmanned waiting room. While the Prison Service has no real targets to maintain family ties, the least it could do is to ensure that every prison has a proper centre, not merely a waiting room, so that the quality of visits and their crucial value in maintaining family contact can be supported as far as possible. Can the Minister give us any assurances on that?
	But my more fundamental point is that the implications for society are that each time we imprison a mother we are punishing innocent children, where our duty of care as adults is most profound. Is this right or what these children deserve? Should we not be looking at ways to manage and treat their mothers that does not involve incarceration and separation?
	Even more disturbingly, research shows that the chances of these innocent children being themselves drawn into the criminal justice system are significantly increased. In other words, we are actually creating the conditions from which the next generation of disaffected, anti-social or offending young people may come. The ripples of distress go wider and wider.
	That is why I say that how we manage women offenders and their range of problems is not only a reflection of how we deal with the most needy and the most vulnerable—their children—but also impacts on the very nature of our society in the future. We really must think again.

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I, too, join the whole House in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, for such an excellent start to the debate, the tone of which has been so informed.
	I know that statistics can be manipulated to make them support whatever we wish. However, the statistics for women in prison are truly shocking, unequivocal and speak for themselves. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has given us all a lesson in bringing statistics to life.
	I should like to highlight the problems facing women detained in prisons. There is very little new to say. Problems such as drug abuse, family issues and mental health will not go away. I hope that the debate will convince the Government that there is no room for complacency. If we do nothing, the problems, like the prison population, will rise.
	The main statistic overhanging the debate is that there were three times as many women prisoners in 2003 than in 1993. It is therefore very disappointing that at the beginning of the year there were 19 prisons in England and Wales and now there are only 17, Edmund's Hill and the female unit at Winchester prison having been closed. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester has drawn attention to the dreadful disruption caused by the re-role of prisons, particularly women's prisons.
	These closures have not helped the many problems that women in prison face, one of the most important of which is separation from the family. The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, drew attention to this in the most eloquent way. The scarcity of prisons means that the women tend to be far away from their homes, which makes the important links with the family more difficult. The Prison Reform Trust found that the women, on average, are held 63 miles away from home. It is worth noting that nearly 50 per cent of women prisoners are mothers and that around a third have children under the age of five.
	The impact which lack of contact has on the children involved in these situations is truly dreadful; a worse start in life for these children can hardly be imagined.
	A particularly difficult statistic is that mothers in prison have an average of 2.1 children each. Research suggests that separation from the family, and particularly mothers from young children, contributes significantly to the levels of depression in children. The noble Baroness, Lady Gale, referred to the number of mental disorders to which prisoners are subject. She has rightly drawn attention to the increased dependency on medication in prison. It has been said during this debate that approximately 20 per cent of women prisoners ask to see a doctor or nurse each day—almost twice as many as the male prisoners. Clearly, more resources are needed for healthcare in those prisons, although I pay tribute to the Government for bringing health in prisons within the National Health Service.
	Many noble Lords have drawn attention to the worrying trend of increasing suicides in prisons. Self-inflicted death rates, although we need no reminding, have gone from one in 1993 to nine in 2002, 14 in 2003 and 11 so far this year. That is really a most worrying trend. One of the most chilling statements that I have heard today is that from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that five prisoners have to be cut down at Holloway every night. I have been told about the trauma throughout the prison, in the days of capital punishment, when there was an execution—but the sheer numbers of deaths in these prisons must in a different way be equally traumatic.
	I refer to one particular shortcoming in the prison system to which females are particularly vulnerable. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen, have also drawn attention to the issue of prisoners on remand. Between 1992 and 2002, there was an increase of 196 per cent of female prisoners on remand, compared with only 52 per cent for males. Of the 12,000 women sent to prison in 2002, no less than two-thirds, as noble Lords have been informed, were on remand. Following trials, six out of 10 do not receive custodial sentences and one in five is acquitted.
	The excellent report produced by the Prison Reform Trust, Lacking Conviction, concludes that,
	"custodial remand is used too frequently by the courts due to unacceptable failures to gather, present and transfer information about the needs and experiences of vulnerable women".
	The report makes a number of recommendations: that custodial remand,
	"must be reserved for those charged with serious or violent offences".
	It recommended that there should be "a wide-ranging review" and that a,
	"network of small, local women-only supervision centres",
	should be set up. In particular, it recommended:
	"An increase in the provision and an improvement in the quality of court based diversion schemes for women with serious mental health problems".
	It is salutary, and not for the first time, to consider how women prisoners are treated in other countries. An excellent study by the Fawcett Society notes two examples. In Russia, mothers of children under the age of 14 who are convicted of all but the most serious offences are routinely given suspended sentences until the child reaches the age of 14. In Germany, women are housed under curfew with their children in units attached to prisons but located outside the gates. The noble Baroness, Lady Stern, has reminded us that the imprisonment rate for women in France is substantially lower than the rate in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has drawn attention to the Dutch experience. I hope that the Minister can assure the House that the Government study the treatment of women offenders in other countries, particularly those in Europe, and have an open mind about adopting some of the best practices.
	Finally, I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the organisations that work so hard to improve the lives of women currently being detained. It would be invidious to mention names, but their contribution to the welfare of prisoners is immense. I venture also to suggest that many noble Lords, certainly myself, have benefited from the briefing which those organisations have given us for this excellent debate today. I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Gale on obtaining this debate and on obtaining one of a decent length. This is a very important issue and I certainly welcome the opportunity to discuss it. The opportunity to reply to a debate such as this is my payback for the duties that I perform at the Home Office from time to time with my noble friend Lady Scotland. As I say, this is an absolutely vital issue.
	I want to speak in some detail on the work of the Prison Service's Women's Team and the Women's Offending Reduction Programme. I assure noble Lords that I shall write to them regarding any points I do not cover.
	This is a serious problem. At the outset I pay my tribute and that of the Government to the people who work in prisons. The Prison Service does not send women to prison. The Government do not send women to prison. Indeed, Parliament does not send women to prison. It is the courts that send women to prison. This debate should be replied to by someone responsible for the courts. However, if one questions what they do they become very sensitive about what they consider to be interference. I shall comment on that further later as I deviate from my notes.
	Many statistics exist. I do not want to trade statistics as I have not heard any that are inaccurate although occasionally I hear myths being perpetuated. It is important for those who examine these matters to understand the situation. In the past decade there has been a massive increase in the number of women in custody. The figure has risen from 1,560 in 1993 to more than 4,600 in May this year. However, I want to make it absolutely clear that at the end of June this year 49 per cent of women in prison had been imprisoned for drug offences or violence against the person. It is a myth that they are all there for shoplifting. I am not saying that one is a lesser offence than the other, but shoplifting is not identified anyway. We all know of relevant examples, some of which have been given today, but the total figure for theft and handling, which encompasses shoplifting, accounts for about 14 per cent of women in prison. I refer to that figure in the context of the myths surrounding why people are in prison.
	Virtually none of the points that were made today are points with which I or the Government would disagree. Our debate has been extremely constructive. In some ways the debate constitutes a missed opportunity for Members of the other place. When I was a Home Office Minister in 2001 and 2002 a long debate on prisons took place initiated by the late Lord Longford, sadly just two weeks before he died. I told my colleagues in the other place that they were missing something in not having debates on prisons and penal reform of the kind that take place in the House of Lords. If I had the power to do so I would lock the Cabinet, the judges and MPs who rant about this place in a room and make them watch the video of this debate to show them how constructive it has been. There has been hardly any "bitching" or carping at all about what is a very difficult situation. What is more, we have not only heard problems being raised; many solutions have been offered. It is not an issue for which it is impossible to find solutions.
	Some 76 per cent of women are sentenced to terms of 12 months or less. That in itself points to the key question of whether prison should have been imposed for the offence in question if a term of 12 months or less was involved. We have been given many examples of other countries that appear to cope with the situation. However, we seem unable to do so.
	Drugs are an issue. As with male prisoners, the use of drugs by women prisoners has increased. The incidence of drug related offences has risen. However, there are differences regarding men's and women's use of drugs. Women in custody tend to have a more severe poly-drug use and are more used to hard drugs such as heroin. The family issue has been raised. For women, their children and family are the main focus of their lives. Some 55 per cent of women in prison have children under the age of 16 and over one-third have a child under the age of five. Some 71 per cent of the children had been living with their mothers just before their imprisonment; I shall come to the point about the time just before imprisonment, because of issues raised by noble Lords.
	Distance from home is a serious issue, and I shall come to it in a moment. There are relatively few women's prisons. I think that the grand total is 18 at the moment, with a women's unit at Durham. Durham and Edmunds Hill are to re-role by the end of December. I shall come to Brockhill in a moment.
	The subject of healthcare was raised. Women tend naturally to place a greater demand on medical services than men. Almost twice as many—20 per cent rather than 10 per cent—ask to see a nurse or doctor each day. Drug abuse and mental health are often linked. More than two-thirds of women prisoners interviewed for a national survey were assessed as having a neurotic disorder such as depression, anxieties and phobias. The comparable figure in the community is less than 20 per cent. Half of women present with some form of personality disorder. Many of the disorders are linked to suicide and self-harm.
	It is a major issue—a tragedy that is on the increase that must be attended to—that the death rate of suicides and self-inflicted deaths in prison has increased dramatically, from one in 1993 to 14 in 2003. Population growth of women in prison alone cannot account for that increase. The general rate of self-inflicted deaths has increased. Key factors are drug use and high levels of personal risk factors for self-harm and self-inflicted death. I do not have all the answers. This afternoon, I have heard some worrying issues about the lack or absence of training of the staff on suicide watch. It is difficult, as I know from listening to what staff said when I visited prisons as a constituency Member of Parliament or when I was at the Home Office—although it was not my day job—when I spent some Fridays doing the odd unannounced visit.
	Women generally commit less serious offences than men—there is no question about that. In security terms, they present much lower risks. It is important to ensure that the security measures used are proportionate to the risks presented.
	The issue of foreign nationals has not been touched on to a large extent, but in some ways it distorts the statistics for women in prison, for reasons that are self-evident. Some 18 per cent of the women are foreign nationals, compared to 11 per cent for the male estate. More than 50 per cent of the foreign national women in UK prisons are from Jamaica, with 90 per cent serving long sentences for drug importation. There is no possibility of their going back to Jamaica to serve their sentences. The majority are not drug users; they have been used as mules. That is a serious issue. By definition, that also alters the ethnic origin figures for women, which is 50 per cent higher than for men.
	Resettlement raises another issue. No one should leave prison without means of making ends meet or a place to live, but for men the key thing when leaving prison is employment. For women, accommodation ranks a lot higher, because family responsibilities often make employment impractical. Accommodation provides the basis for family life. We have to take that into account.
	I want to respond briefly to some points before I come back to those that I said that I wanted to raise. The long journeys from prison were raised by many noble Lords, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Gale. We are conscious of the difficulties of moving prisoners from court and between prisons on their long journeys. One noble Lord said that a woman was moved from a prison a hundred miles away and the family were not told about it, so they visited the wrong prison. That is inexcusable. I shall not stand at this Dispatch Box and defend that practice. I do not care what pressures are on the system; that is unacceptable and should not happen. When anyone is moved in prison, it should not be the case that the family are not informed, but it should particularly not happen to a woman being visited by her children. There are difficulties.
	The new purpose-built women's prison at Bronzefield opened in June. It is in Ashford in Middlesex, and is capable of accommodating 450 prisoners, with much improved facilities. It will cover women for the south-east and now takes a large part of Holloway's catchment area. A new catchment area for Holloway and Bronzefield has been determined after careful analysis of journey times. These issues have been taken into account in the planning. In addition, the prison in Peterborough is due to open for women in March 2005. That will involve further adjustment to catchment areas, which should result in improved journey times for families who are visiting their relatives in prison.
	To ensure that the arrival of women in prison receptions is timely, the court escort contract managers have written to all courts asking them to give priority to women's cases when listing them for hearings. That enables women to start their journey time from court to prison earlier and has had a positive effect on the prisons and the courts. From the end of August this year, as my noble friend Lady Gale mentioned, the new court escort contract came into effect. There are agreed delivery times for all prisoner movements to courts and improvements in that service are expected, particularly in relation to longer journeys. Time will tell and Parliamentary Questions and scrutiny in this House and the other place is the way to hold the Government to account on that. I shall not repeat the results of the surveys because the average distance from homes is 67 miles and the average time is 1 hour and 28 minutes. But averages are very misleading, as we all know.
	Regarding juvenile girls in prison—although some noble Lords have said that as a point of principle young women should not be there, anyway—the creation of five new juvenile units will enable the Prison Service to redesign completely the services for young women in custody. That is assuming that the courts continue to send young women into custody without checking whether there are alternatives. But the units must meet the needs of those who are sent there by the courts. They deserve to have their needs fully met. The juvenile units will have increased staffing ratios to ensure greater interaction with young women. That is fundamental. If there was one theme that ran through many of the speeches it was the issue of training and interaction of those who come into contact with women in prison.
	Staff who work in the units have been specially selected and will undertake training on working with adolescents. The Prison Service is currently developing a national operational specification for the units and the key elements will include advocacy services, substance misuse services, health services—including services to meet the mental health needs of these young women—and the learning and skills services.
	The right reverend Prelate raised the issue of Brockhill. Colleagues might remember that when I was at the Home Office I did not make that many visits on a Friday, but I made a few. I used to arrive in the car park outside a prison and ring the Prisons Minister's private office at the Home Office and say, "By the way, I'm in the car park" at Long Larton or at Brockhill, "and I am just going to make a visit. That's all". I used to present myself at the gate and say, "I'm from the Home Office, I would like to meet the governor". I had never been to a women's prison and one morning in 2002 I went to Brockhill. I left wanting to burn it down. I told that to Martin Narey and the Home Office. I was appalled by what I found.
	I found incredible support among prison officers for the fact that that prison was the wrong place. I should tell the right reverend Prelate that it has not yet been decided whether to re-role Brockhill. If that re-role takes place, it will not happen like it happened before, because when it became a women's prison, Brockhill was re-roled overnight without any warning whatever; without any training for the staff. Basically, it was a young persons' probation hostel in the early 1970s and 1980s. Many constituents wrote to me from Brockhill. If it is to be re-roled, women will not be there and will be more adequately involved in the more modern prisons.
	When I was at Brockhill there was an ongoing dispute, which was not the reason that I was there. There were male prison officers from other women's prisons who were also appalled at the facilities there. I know that matters have been improved there—the health centre has been provided recently—but at the moment the re-roling has not been decided, so the matter is not as clear cut as the right reverend Prelate may have been told. It is true that a re-role is being considered, but the Prisons Minister has not yet approved the change or whether it will happen.
	The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, raised the very important issue of the role of drama and arts in rehabilitation. The Prison Service understands the importance of arts and drama in prisons as not only educational and recreational, but as a rehabilitative medium by facilitating prisoners, especially women prisoners, to participate in art therapy programmes. The Clean Break Theatre Company has given performances in Holloway and other prisons on many occasions and prisoners have found the performances to be worth while and enjoyable. The Clean Break Theatre Company will continue to be welcome in the prisons of this country.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised the issue of the care of children when their mothers are sent to prison. I have a classic sentence in my notes and, in some ways, I am a little reluctant to read it out. I shall read it because, while all these matters need qualification, sometimes one has to state the bald facts and not sugar-coat the answer. Allowing mothers to go home after sentence to make care arrangements for their children is not within the gift of the Prison Service. That is self-evidently true. That does not mean that one could not facilitate some kind of arrangement if it was required. As I have already mentioned, we are taking steps to improve the reception of women into prison so that it does not take place late at night. I am not quite sure why some male prisons are able to lay down the law about not accepting anybody after seven o'clock while women's prisons cannot lay down the law and refuse to accept anybody after five o'clock. I have not quite worked that out. If it can be done for the men, I do not see why it cannot be done for the women. There may be a peculiar factor involved. Perhaps it is because women's prisons are further away. However, as I have said, we are taking steps to list cases involving women earlier in the day so that the issue does not arise.
	However, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, was right to raise that point, as were noble Lords who gave examples which show how other countries such as Germany and Holland can cope with that problem. We do not need to invent the wheel to address what needs to be done.
	We have made arrangements for mothers and babies. We have around 120 places for mothers and babies up to 18 months. At the moment, only some 50 are being used and they are being used for the reasons that the courts have decided. Mothers with babies can be temporarily accommodated in prison. The situation is not completely satisfactory, but work is being done to improve it.
	I shall speak about some of the issues relating to the Women's Team before moving on briefly to the Women's Offending Reduction Programme, which has seen some positive results. Among the key achievements of the Prison Service's Women's Team is the publication of a women's prison allocation strategy that aims to ensure the effective allocation of prisoners based on the length of sentence and their identified needs, including family ties. Housing advisers have been recruited for all women's local prisons. Four prisons have been supported in the transfer of health services to primary care trusts. The national service framework for healthcare of women in custody has been completed. Methadone maintenance programmes will be in place in all women's prisons by the end of the year. At present, they are in place in all but two prisons; Cookham Wood and East Sutton Park. Lead substance misuse nurse posts now exist in all women's prisons. The mental health in-reach teams have been funded and developed in all women's prisons. Research into factors that increase the risk of offending among women has been commissioned. This research, being carried out by the University of Leicester, will explore pathways into offending and include the role of early family experiences.
	Obviously, there remains much to be done in the second half of the year, but work is already going on into the plan for 2005–06. Among the issues that will have particular focus are family networks, financial support and debt and institutionalisation and life skills. I am confident that these improvements will continue to be made in meeting the needs of the women in prisons.
	In terms of wider initiatives, there is no simple answer: I do not make excuses. The Prison Service is one part of the chain. As I said, the Prison Service does not send women to prison. But to that end, the Women's Offending Reduction Programme has been developed and was published on 11 March this year, as my noble friend Lady Gale said. This is a three-year programme of work that encourages joint working between departments, agencies and other organisations to tackle the range of factors that impact on the reasons why women offend.
	It aims to reduce the number of women in custody by focusing on the greater use of community disposals that offer appropriate packages and interventions that are better tailored to address the complex range of factors that impact on women's offending. I fully agree with what has been said. Women are affected by prison in a different way from men. There is no question about that, and it does not matter what age one is. Women are affected differently, and we have to take that into account.
	Two key target groups are women with mental health problems and women with substance misuse problems. In order to meet their needs, the programme operates in tandem with the Department of Health's women's mental health strategy and the national drug strategy.
	The Home Office and the Department of Health have been working together closely to ensure that the needs of women offenders with mental health problems are properly met, with a focus on diversion from custody and getting them into appropriate community-based mental health services and interventions as early as possible. The programme includes "Accommodation Plus" pilots for young women. The National Probation Directorate, the Prison Service and the Youth Justice Board are jointly funding innovative housing-related pilot schemes that aim to meet the housing needs of young women involved in, or at risk of, offending, while, at the same time, providing access to a range of additional support services that can respond to other risk factors, including mental health problems and substance misuse problems.
	The publication of 6 January this year, Reducing Crime—Changing Lives, which has already been referred to, contains the Government's plans for transforming the management of offenders, including the creation of the National Offender Management Service. The emphasis will be on greater use of community sentences for lower-risk offenders. By definition, women pose a lower risk than men; we know that. The use of case management will also be a key feature of the new service, with end-to-end management ensuring a co-ordinated and joined-up response.
	In order to reduce the number of women in custody and increase the potential for diversion, the programme will focus on improving sentencers' confidence in community disposals that offer appropriate packages and interventions and are better tailored to meet the particular needs of women offenders.
	When noble Lords read this debate in Hansard, they will see that what I am basically describing is the women's justice board, which was advocated but has not yet been created by the Home Office. I supported it from this Dispatch Box when I was a Home Office Minister. It has still not been brought about, but I think that we are doing it in all but name. The proof will be in the pudding. It is not my job to make policy on the hoof. Nevertheless, that recommendation was made and it has widespread support, but it has not been put into operation by the Home Office.
	The offenders' management programme will focus on reducing the number of women in custody and increasing the potential for diversion. It will improve sentencers' confidence—that is, the courts' confidence—that the other alternatives will work. Therefore, we are bringing about the board in all but name.
	I hope that what I have said will convince the House that the Government are taking the issues seriously. I shall ensure that other Ministers and, indeed, Members of the other House take them seriously. It is a tribute to this House that we can, in a civilised way, have this kind of debate on what is a fundamental issue in terms of penal policy. We have brought out some of the problems and advocated some of the solutions in a rational way and not in the way that the media sometimes portray the issue.

Baroness Gale: My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for responding to the debate in the open and straightforward manner to which we have become accustomed. Quite often when I am listening to the Minister, I have an image in my mind: he creates vivid images. The one that will stay in my mind was the idea of having the Cabinet, Ministers and Back-Benchers watching a video recording of our proceedings. I hope that, if he can arrange that, there will be a viewing area so that we can see all the reactions.
	I thank him very much for giving a full response to the points raised in the debate. I said earlier that I was very pleased that the debate took place over two-and-a-half hours. I am also pleased that so many noble Lords put their names down to speak, but I am absolutely delighted that two other noble Lords chose to speak in the gap, making 17 speakers in this extremely serious and interesting debate.
	As the Minister said, what came through was the general theme that we are all concerned about the fact that most women should not be in prison. Many women in prison suffer from mental health and emotional problems. There is also the problem of low self-esteem which is shown by the self-harm and the attempted suicides that take place. I am certainly pleased with the measures that the Government are taking, but we have a long way to go before we can get the situation right.
	Once again, I thank everyone for taking part in the debate. I am sure that we shall return to this issue. I cannot possibly respond to all the points, but I am pleased that people with great experience in this area have chosen to speak today. I put myself down as a beginner and I feel honoured that noble Lords chose to speak in the debate. I am eternally grateful to them. We have raised an issue of great importance; it is one to which I hope we shall return. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
	House adjourned at ten minutes past four o'clock.